House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
Nineteenth Report of Session 2010-12
Report and Appendix, together with formal minutes and oral and written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 17 January 2012
HC 1582 Published on 20 January 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50
The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC)
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)
The following member was also a member of the Committee during the inquiry: Nick de Bois MP (Conservative, Enfield North)
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 Martyn Atkins (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].
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 1
Contents
Report Page
Summary 3
1 Introduction 5
2 The combined role of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service 7 The role of Parliament in changes to Civil Service structures 9
3 Implications for the Head of the Civil Service and for the Civil Service 10 The proposed arrangements 12 Access to the Prime Minister 15
4 Time commitment of the Head of the Civil Service 18 A full-time Head of the Civil Service? 22
5 Leadership at the top of the Civil Service 26 Lines of accountability for Permanent Secretaries 26 Effect on Civil Service reform 30 Staffing and offices for the new Head of the Civil Service. 33 The role of Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office 34
6 Conclusion 36
Conclusions and recommendations 38
Appendix 1: Letter from Sir Bob Kerslake to Mr Bernard Jenkin MP, Chair of PASC 43
Formal Minutes 45
Witnesses 46
List of printed written evidence 46
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 47
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 3
Summary
The Civil Service faces a period of radical change as it strives to meet the Government’s objectives to devolve power out to communities and citizens, and to reduce costs. We have identified leadership as one of the key principles for achieving this transformation within Whitehall, and the retirement of Sir Gus (now Lord) O'Donnell as Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service has made timely a consideration of how the Civil Service should be managed.
Whilst this report is mainly concerned with the Civil Service, we recognise that changes in the governance of the Civil Service can have implications for the much wider role of the Cabinet Secretary, who is concerned with the totality of government. This we shall monitor and return to, if necessary, in due course.
We have sought to consider what form the leadership at the top of the Civil Service should take to implement a change programme across Whitehall, to break down departmental silos and overcome bureaucratic inertia. Our work on Civil Service reform has shown that the size of this task should not be underestimated.
The Government proposed dividing Sir Gus O'Donnell’s role into three separate posts: Head of the Civil Service, Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office. Sir Bob Kerslake, Sir Jeremy Heywood and Ian Watmore have been appointed to these posts respectively. Sir Bob will have direct responsibility for Civil Service reform, with Mr Watmore reporting to him.
We are concerned that this could lead to weaker leadership and disperse power at a critical time of change in government. The Civil Service needs to have clear and effective leadership and a strong reforming head to make the necessary changes. We are disturbed that all four surviving former Cabinet Secretaries have expressed deep reservations. We therefore believe it would be right for the Government to monitor these changes and review their effectiveness in due course.
Sir Bob Kerslake has been given the responsibility of leading the Government’s reform programme in Whitehall. To achieve this, the Head of the Civil Service must have the seniority and access to the Prime Minister to fulfil the essential role of speaking truth unto power. As one of the checks and balances on executive power, the Civil Service, through its head figure, must have parity of status with the Cabinet Secretary. We have recommended that the Head of the Civil Service regularly meet the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, and should as a matter of course attend Cabinet, and be placed at the Cabinet table on an equal footing with the Cabinet Secretary.
We hope that Sir Bob Kerslake’s appointment will be a success and that the new structure will be made to work effectively. However the risk of unequal status with the Cabinet Secretary, and limited access to the Prime Minister remain a concern. While the evidence
4 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary from Sir Bob Kerslake was persuasive on these points, we will monitor closely how this post works in practice, and we recommend a full review of the new structure by July 2012.
We are also not convinced that the role of Head of the Civil Service can be combined with that of a permanent secretary in a major government department. The demands on Sir Bob Kerslake by the Head of the Civil Service role are extensive. In practice there is a strong case for a full-time Head of the Civil Service. We found that the Head of the Civil Service role has grown substantially since the posts of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service were combined in the early 1980s. While the post has always been held as a part- time role, in conjunction with another senior Civil Service post, the transformational change required and the challenges facing the Civil Service are of such magnitude that it is necessary to consider whether what has served in the past is suitable for the future.
We have recommended that the July 2012 review we propose should also assess whether a full-time Head of the Civil Service is required, and whether it would be appropriate to combine the roles of Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office and Head of the Civil Service in one post. This would place responsibility for Civil Service reform solely with one individual in the stronger centre of government which we consider is needed to drive Civil Service reform.
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 5
1 Introduction
1. The Civil Service is one of the United Kingdom’s great institutions. It is not merely the administrative function of government: it is one of the vital checks and balances in the UK’s largely unwritten constitution. Its impartiality and objectivity are supposed to be its hallmark. Senior civil servants are responsible for advising Ministers on appropriate procedures and legal and ethical practices. They must be independent enough to speak truth to power. No two roles are more important in this respect than those of the Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service, roles which have in recent years been vested in one person.
2. The retirement of the Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus (now Lord) O’Donnell, was announced on 11 October 2011.1 On the same date, significant changes to the staffing at the top of the Civil Service were announced. Whilst this paper deals mainly with those changes we recognise that they could impact on the wider role of the Cabinet Secretary, who is concerned with the totality of government. This we shall monitor and review in due course.
3. Sir Gus retired on 31 December and has been succeeded as Cabinet Secretary, but not as Head of the Civil Service, by Sir Jeremy Heywood, formerly Permanent Secretary at 10 Downing Street.2 Sir Bob Kerslake has been appointed Head of the Civil Service, a post he will hold in conjunction with his current post, that of Permanent Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government. Sir Gus was also Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office. This role is now filled by Ian Watmore, formerly Chief Operating Officer of the Efficiency and Reform Group in the Cabinet Office. The post of Permanent Secretary of 10 Downing Street has effectively been taken over by the Cabinet Secretary.
4. These changes raise fundamental question about the leadership of the Civil Service. In our report, Change in Government: the Agenda for Leadership,3 we identified ‘Leadership’ as the first of six key principles of good governance and change management. The success of the government’s public service reform agenda depends upon the successful implementation of change in government. We therefore attach the highest importance to the structure of leadership at the top of the Civil Service.
5. This inquiry sought to examine the reasons given for splitting Sir Gus O’Donnell’s role, the impact on the Civil Service, and the key tasks and responsibilities of the Head of the Civil Service.
1 “Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell has today announced his retirement”, Number 10 Downing Street website, 11 October 2011, www.number10.gov.uk 2 The appointment of Sir Jeremy as KCB was announced in the 2012 New Year’s Honours List. 3 Public Administration Select Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership, HC 714
6 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
6. In particular during the inquiry PASC considered the governance and leadership of the Civil Service in terms of: a) the promotion of better cross-departmental working; b) the implementation of a change programme involving the top management of all departments, including the centre of Government, and identifying the barriers to change; c) the establishment of a stronger centre for the operation of Government able to lead, to coordinate and to support delivery departments throughout the reform process and beyond; and d) the preservation of the status and independence of the leadership of the senior Civil Service; and the ability to speak truth unto power.
7. This inquiry was an opportunity for PASC to press the key findings of our Change in Government report, which recommended that “the scale of the challenges faced by the Civil Service call for the establishment of such a corporate centre, headed by someone with the authority to insist on delivery across the Civil Service”.4 The conclusions of that report have been broadly welcomed by the Government.5
8. We published the issues and questions paper for our inquiry on 19 October 2011, following the announcement by the Government of the proposed changes. The appointment of Sir Bob Kerslake was announced on 11 November. On 23 November Sir Gus O’Donnell provided us with an organisation chart which set out the reporting lines under the new system. They had not hitherto been released.
9. Over the course of this inquiry we received ten memoranda. We also held six evidence sessions, where we heard from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, the new Head of the Civil Service, Sir Bob Kerslake, the then Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell, and five former Heads of the Civil Service: Sir Douglas Wass, Rt Hon the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, Rt Hon the Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and Lord Turnbull. We also took evidence from academics, journalists and commentators on Civil Service issues. We would like to thank all those who contributed to the inquiry and our specialist adviser on this inquiry, Professor Andrew Kakabadse, Professor of International Management Development at Cranfield University School of Management.6
4 Public Administration Select Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership, HC 714, para 110 5 Public Administration Select Committee, Eighteenth Report of Session 2010-12, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership: Further Report, with the Government Responses to the Committee’s Eleventh, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Reports of Session 2010-12, HC 1746 6 Professor Andrew Kakabadse was appointed as Specialist Adviser to the Committee for this inquiry on 18 October 2011.
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 7
2 The combined role of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service
10. The first Head of the Home Civil Service, Sir Warren Fisher, who held the post between 1919 and 1939, set a precedent for his successors by taking the role on a part-time basis, alongside another senior Civil Service position, in his case, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. This arrangement was made in response to the 1918 Haldane Report, which had urged greater control over the Civil Service by the Treasury.7 The combination of the two roles of Head of the Home Civil Service and Permanent Secretary to the Treasury was a common arrangement until the 1968 Fulton Report, save for the period from 1956 to 1962, when the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Norman Brook, concurrently held the post of joint Permanent Secretary to the Treasury and Head of the Home Civil Service, the first Cabinet Secretary to be appointed Head of the Home Civil Service.
11. In 1968, in response to recommendations of the Fulton Report, a Civil Service Department (CSD) was established, the Permanent Secretary of which also served as Head of the Home Civil Service. The CSD was relatively short-lived: on its abolition in 1981, the serving Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong (now Lord Armstrong of Ilminster) was asked to take on the role of Head of the Home Civil Service, jointly with Sir Douglas Wass, who held the joint role in combination with his role of Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. On Sir Douglas’ retirement, Sir Robert became the sole Head of the Home Civil Service, keeping his role as Cabinet Secretary. Lord Butler told us that the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was unwilling to continue what she had described as a "Pinky and Perky arrangement” of joint Heads of the Home Civil Service.8 12. Sir Robert’s successors, Sir Robin Butler (now Lord Butler of Brockwell), Sir Richard Wilson (now Lord Wilson of Dinton), Sir Andrew Turnbull (now Lord Turnbull) and Sir Gus O’Donnell (now Lord O’Donnell) have all occupied the joint role of Head of the Home Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary.9 13. Four former Cabinet Secretaries were blunt in their hostility to the new arrangement. They told us that splitting the roles of Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary had not worked in the past. Lord Turnbull said that The history is quite an unhappy one. Those who took the job, I would say the late Ian Bancroft in particular, felt they were typecast as the shop steward of the mandarinate. In other words they were representing this class of people rather than working with Ministers to get this class of people to change, develop and improve. In my last conversation with him, the late Douglas Allen said, ‘Well, I have had this fine career, and it all rather ended with a whimper because I took this separate job and I wish I hadn’t; I wish I had just gone.’10
7 Peter Hennessy, Whitehall (London: 2001), p 69 8 Q 13 [Lord Butler of Brockwell] 9 Following the entry into force of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the Head of the Home Civil Service is now simply entitled Head of the Civil Service; the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office remains Head of the Diplomatic Service. 10 Q 91 [Lord Turnbull]
8 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
His predecessor in the role, Lord Wilson, stated that
The history of this job in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s does teach you that separating off the Head of the Civil Service, particularly if you locate it outside, is going to be extremely hard to work.11
The decision now to have a separate Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service was, Lord Wilson suggested: a “brave step into the past”.12 Lord Turnbull described it as “a step backwards”.13
14. Lord Armstrong told us that combining the roles of Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary in 1983 had been thought “to be a permanent change in the light of the experience of previous decades”, but noted that personalities were critical to the success of this model.14 Other witnesses confirmed the view that the new structure at the top of the Civil Service might not be permanent, and some indicated that the continuation of the structure would be dependent on political circumstances and the personalities involved. Sir Gus O'Donnell presented this positively: the new structure was dependent on successful collaboration between the Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary: it would “only work if they [Sir Bob Kerslake and Sir Jeremy Heywood] work together really well”.15 He added that the new structure was “right for this Parliament and through this Parliament”, but that he could “imagine a circumstance where it would be right to have one person doing both [the job of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service]”.16 Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary, University of London, appeared scathing when he said that the new structure was “not going to hold”,17 and Professor Colin Talbot declared that he “would put money on it” being reversed.18
15. The Prime Minister, in evidence to the Liaison Committee on 8 November 2011, did not attempt to dispute this, and acknowledged that his successors might revert to one individual holding two roles. However, he defended his decision to divide the roles as part of a more substantial reorganisation of the heart of Government which, he argued, completed a reform undertaken by the previous administration:
I think Gus O’Donnell has been a fantastic Cabinet Secretary . . . and Gordon Brown’s initiative of putting a permanent secretary into No 10, which he did with Jeremy Heywood, was actually a good move, but I think the way to modernise and make that permanent is . . . to split the Cabinet Secretary’s role in two—to have that permanent secretary effectively uniting No. 10 and the Cabinet Office and then to
11 Q 92 12 Q 85 13 Q 91 [Lord Turnbull] 14 Q 13 15 Q 317 16 Q 271 17 Q 182 18 Q 224 [Professor Talbot]
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 9
have someone separate doing the home civil service role . . . I absolutely feel this is the right thing to do.19
16. The role of Head of the Civil Service, and the relationship between the Head of the Civil Service and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, are matters of vital importance to good governance and define the nature of the Civil Service itself. Our starting point for this inquiry was the recognition that, while the structure in which one individual holds the combined roles of Cabinet Secretary, Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and Head of the Civil Service had been perceived to be an effective arrangement for leadership of the Civil Service and provision of support to the Prime Minister over the last thirty years, the Civil Service faces new and substantial challenges to reform, discussed in detail in PASC’s recent report on Change in Government: the agenda for leadership. Might an alternative arrangement at the top of the Civil Service prove more effective? Existing structures may have supported Civil Service reform through periods of incremental change: but the present agenda for reform, which includes substantial cuts in administrative budgets alongside considerable transfers of functions from the centre, requires a different approach to Civil Service leadership. It is in this context that we examined the decision to review and adapt the structure at the top of the Civil Service.
The role of Parliament in changes to Civil Service structures 17. The journalist and commentator David Walker expressed his concern that a significant change at the top of the Civil Service had been announced without consultation with the public or with Parliament.20 We suggest that, in the interests of good and transparent government, a discussion with PASC ahead of the decision to divide Sir Gus O'Donnell’s role as Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service would have been beneficial.
18. The post of Head of the Civil Service is a Civil Service appointment, regulated by the First Civil Service Commissioner, not a public appointment regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It therefore falls outside the scope of posts which have been considered by the Government and the Liaison Committee as ones for which the preferred candidate should be subject to a Select Committee pre- appointment hearing. Sir Bob Kerslake, as Head-designate of the Civil Service, readily agreed to appear before PASC before taking up the appointment. We considered this a valuable opportunity for him to place on record how he planned to discharge his responsibilities, and we are grateful to him for his readiness to appear. This evidence session was not a pre-appointment hearing to examine his professional competence. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to make clear that we are, on the basis of the hearing entirely satisfied that he has the competencies to discharge his responsibilities.
19 Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Liaison Committee on 8 November 2011, HC (2010-2012) 608 iv Q 356 20 Q 234 [David Walker]
10 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
3 Implications for the Head of the Civil Service and for the Civil Service
19. Former Heads of the Home Civil Service expressed serious concerns about the effect on the standing of the Head of the Civil Service, and on the Civil Service in general, of dividing Sir Gus O’Donnell’s role, and questioned the rationale for the change. Lord Turnbull, who served as Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service between 2002 and 2005, said that he believed splitting the posts was a very messy solution, and lacked “a clear rationale.”21 Lord Butler told us that “from all points of view, I regret the change.”22
20. The Minister for the Cabinet Office told us that the sole reason for splitting Sir Gus O’Donnell’s role was that “each of the three roles that Sir Gus has filled with distinction is more demanding than it was.”23 The workload had increased as a result of the extra demands of the Coalition Government and the needs to reform the Civil Service.24 Sir Gus also confirmed that his workload had increased, pointing out that as Cabinet Secretary, he had to
deal not only with a Prime Minister and a Cabinet, but with a Prime Minister, a Deputy Prime Minister and a Cabinet. There are a lot more coalition committees, so there is a bigger role for the Cabinet Secretary.25
21. Sir Gus O’Donnell argued that the new structure reflects changing circumstances: “when circumstances change, you think about changing the solutions to those new circumstances and design the best possible solutions to the problems of the day.”26 He indicated that his predecessors had not operated under the particular circumstances of a coalition administration and in the pressures of the current economic situation.27
22. One reason for the growth in the workload of Head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus argued, was the need for “a visible Head of the Civil Service out there in the country explaining the changes” involved in Civil Service reform programmes.28 The importance of the visibility of the Head of the Civil Service to front line workers was emphasised in written evidence by a former civil servant, David Laughrin, who told us of the dismay of frontline officials in the early 1980s “that no one seemed to be listening to their concerns, defending their professionalism and standing up for them, except behind closed doors.”29 Sir Douglas Wass, a former Head of the Home Civil Service, disagreed, arguing that, while the Head of the Civil Service had a valuable but limited role in speaking out about pan-Civil Service
21 Q 87 22 Q 6 23 Q 450. The three roles are Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office. 24 Q 446 25 Q 268 26 Q 280 27 Q 279 28 Q 268 29 Ev 94
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 11 matters, he or she was “very remote” from the lives of front line officials, and as therefore “unlikely to have anything to say to them which bears on their concerns and preoccupations.”30
23. Sir Gus O’Donnell argued that since Sir Douglas Wass’s time in post the Head of the Civil Service had become more visible, and that that it was valuable for the Head of the Civil Service to have a two-way dialogue with front-line officials, taking concerns back to Whitehall and spreading the word about Civil Service values.31 Sir Gus also argued that the appointment of Sir Bob Kerslake—who, before his appointment as Permanent Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, had served as Chief Executive of the Homes and Communities Agency after a decade as Chief Executive of Sheffield City Council—would bring about a “synergy” for front line officials, who would see the Head of the Civil Service as “someone who actually knows about delivery at the local level”.32
24. Other witnesses were critical of the decision to divide Sir Gus O’Donnell’s role. Professor David Richards and Professor Martin Smith, of the University of Sheffield, argued that splitting the roles “smacks of one of the besetting sins of British administrative reform—that of ad hocery and short-termism to suit the personal whims of individuals [be they ministerial or bureaucratic] of the day—rather than properly thought-out, longer- term organisational reform based on a set of coherent structural and managerial plans”.33 This view was shared by David Walker, who argued that:
we live in fiscal emergency; whether you are on the right or left of politics, there are major problems about public revenues and public expenditure. The leadership potential of this role and the management potential of some better division of labour within the centre of the Civil Service is critically important to making the British state run better and to make it more effective and efficient. It is actually terribly important to get this right, and the fact is that the Government has proceeded without any evidence.34
Lord Turnbull described the new structure as “ad hoc, ad hominem and ad tempora.”35
25. The Minister firmly rejected the suggestion that the new structure at the top of the Civil Service had been ill-thought out. Instead he stated that there had been “a long discussion about whether this [Sir Gus O’Donnell’s job] was more than could reasonably be done by one person.”36
30 Ev 102 31 Qq 282, 283 32 Q 274 33 Ev 91 34 Q 235 [David Walker] 35 Q 87 36 Q 446
12 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
The proposed arrangements 26. The organisation chart and tables provided to us by Sir Gus O’Donnell on 23 November had not been available to us or to our previous witnesses beforehand. They set out for the first time the proposed new structure and reporting relationships for the top of the Civil Service under the new arrangements. The posts of Head of the Civil Service and of Cabinet Secretary are represented as of equal standing, with both reporting directly to the Prime Minister and to the Deputy Prime Minister: in addition the Head of the Civil Service has a reporting line to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Figure 1: Reporting lines to the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Head of the Cabinet Cabinet Office Civil Service Secretary
Permanent Permanent Secretaries:- Secretaries:- Service Cross Cutting
Permanent Secretary Cabinet Office
Cabinet Office
Source: Additional evidence from the Cabinet Office (HCS 10, Ev 107)
27. Sir Gus also provided detailed tables setting out the respective responsibilities of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary, including areas where each would support the other. These are reproduced in Table 1: shading indicates where the lead for each area of responsibility lies.37 These tables indicate to us that the Head of the Civil Service is to have considerable continuing responsibilities at the heart of Government, alongside the Cabinet Secretary.
37 Emphasis is original: the Committee’s comments and clarifications are in brackets.
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 13
Table 1: Roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
[Area of Head of the Civil Service Cabinet Secretary responsibility]
Title Head of the Civil Service Secretary to the Cabinet responsible to the Prime Minister responsible to all Ministers for the and the Minister for the Civil running of Cabinet Government. Service.
Core role Responsible for providing Ensuring collective decision- purpose [sic] professional and corporate making in support of the agreed leadership to the Civil Service Programme for Government; high- and enhancing the immediate and quality, objective advice and longer-term capability of the support to the Prime Minister and Civil Service with strong Deputy Prime Minister in all governance and accountability. aspects of their roles; and, working The Civil Service values will be with the Head of the Civil Service, promoted, embedded and ensuring the Civil Service has the safeguarded. This will be leadership and clear policy focus combined with the existing necessary to deliver the departmental role. Government’s agenda.
Day to day Whitehall and Outward Facing: Policy and Minister Focused: nature of role working with all Permanent operating at the centre of Whitehall, Secretaries to lead the immediate working closely with departments, to Civil Service reform agenda and ensure smooth functioning of the build improved capability; policy machine; acting as guardian of enhancing governance and collective government and propriety accountability; strong focus on across the Coalition Government; wider public service reform. commanding the confidence of all Ministers.
Cabinet Option to attend Cabinet as Secretary to Cabinet. appropriate. [see paras 38-39]
Cabinet Attends relevant Cabinet Advise Prime Minister on formation Committees Committees as appropriate. of Cabinet Committees.
Machinery of Government Joint role in advising Prime Minister of suggested changes.
Cabinet Manual Leads on Civil Service issues. Cabinet Secretary lead on all other issues.
Propriety Primary focus on Civil Service Primary focus on Ministerial, Special propriety and guardian of the Civil Advisers and wider Government Service Code. propriety.
Honours Chair State Honours. Chair Main Honours.
Royal Liaison, Liaison with the Palace on Civil Key links between Palace and HM Select Service issues. Attends Select Government. Attends Select Committees Committees when called. Committees when called.
14 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
Head of the Civil Service Cabinet Secretary
National Security No direct role. Leads on national security and Member of National Security Council.
PM Meetings Regular joint bilateral.
Senior Civil Responsibility for succession Joint role in advising Prime Minister Service planning; Chair of Senior on Senior Civil Service and other Appointments Leadership Committee. appointments. Attends Senior Leadership Committee.
Permanent Line Management of delivery Line Management of cross cutting Secretary Permanent Secretaries. and national security Permanent Management Secretaries.
Permanent Secretaries' Joint role on Permanent Secretaries' Remuneration Committee. Remuneration
Wednesday morning Joint chair, and similarly on Permanent Secretaries' informal meetings and meetings [of all away days, as they cover policy and management. Permanent Secretaries]
Top 200 [most Chairs Top 200. Attends Top 200 events. senior civil servants]
Governance Chair of Civil Service Steering Attendance at, and close working Board and key sub-groups (unless with, the Head of the Civil Service on delegated). all main governance committees.
Permanent Member as required (in Chair as required (e.g. Permanent Secretaries' departmental capacity). Secretaries Spending Review group). policy groups
External External face of the Civil Service Supporting role. communications, for media and recruitment etc. outreach and Lead on visible leadership of Civil Civil Service Service across the UK. Lead on awards Civil Service awards, Diversity awards etc.
Civil Service Lead work on Capability Reviews Supporting role. capability, and Departmental Boards, and governance and senior salaries review body. pay
Workforce issues Lead on overall workforce Supporting role. and Induction planning, recruitment and and Training pensions reform. Basecamp for Senior Civil Service, induction for Fast Stream etc. Source: Additional evidence from the Cabinet Office (HCS 10, Ev 108)
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 15
28. In his evidence to us before he took up his post, Sir Bob Kerslake agreed that it was important for the authority of the Head of the Civil Service to have the full backing of the Prime Minister. He made it clear that regular meetings with the Prime Minister had been part of the agreement under which he had been prepared to take up the job.38 He also rejected the suggestion that would have any difficulty fulfilling the duty of the Head of the Civil Service to “speak truth unto power” stating that he “would expect to be able to do that as clearly and as honestly as [he does] to [his] current Secretary of State”.39
29. Sir Bob also dismissed the concerns about the seniority of the Head of the Civil Service in comparison to the Cabinet Secretary, emphasising the equal status of the two roles:
Bluntly, I don’t have any concerns about that issue, going into the job. We are on the same level. We both report to the Prime Minister. We both have access to the Prime Minister in terms of issues. We both have an ability to attend Cabinet meetings. We will both be on the same salary. We will be sharing a private office. Going into the job, I don’t have any concerns about it at all. The test of it, in the end, will be whether I perform the job well. That will demonstrate the status of the role against the Cabinet Secretary, but it is not an issue that is a concern for me.40
30. It is reasonable for a prime minister to choose who he or she wants at the most senior levels of the Civil Service and for him to decide which structures best suit the requirements of the government and their respective capabilities. However, these arrangements must ensure that the Head of the Civil Service has the seniority, the respect and the ear of the Prime Minister in order to fulfil his role, particularly one essential role of the Civil Service: the requirement to speak truth to power. Time will tell whether or not the new Head of the Civil Service has the necessary authority to carry out his functions.
Access to the Prime Minister 31. Giving evidence to the Committee before the details of the division of the roles were known, Lords Armstrong, Butler, Wilson and Turnbull were concerned that splitting the role of Head of the Civil Service from the Cabinet Secretary position would downgrade the role of Head of the Civil Service. Lord Butler said
I think that it is not so good for the Civil Service if the Cabinet Secretary is not Head of the Civil Service, for the reasons that the Cabinet Secretary gets more ready access to the Prime Minister, and, with all the other things that a Prime Minister has to do, it is not easy for the Prime Minister to find time for the affairs of the Civil Service. I think that somebody who is not Cabinet Secretary will find it more difficult to get access.41
38 Qq 549, 551 39 Q 528 40 Q 527 41 Q 6
16 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
32. Sir Gus O'Donnell told us that he considered the roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service to be on an “equal basis”, but said that he expected Jeremy Heywood as Cabinet Secretary to have “more frequent access to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister than [would] the Head of the Civil Service”.42
33. Lord Armstrong argued that the authority of the Head of the Civil Service was dependent, in part, on the proximity of the postholder to the Prime Minister43 and stated:
Even though the Head of the Civil Service is going to be on the same pay level as the Secretary of the Cabinet, and in that sense be equal, I think that in fact the Secretary of the Cabinet will be first among equals. He will be primus inter pares. The sheer proximity to the Prime Minister will in a sense ensure that. I suspect that people will look to the Cabinet Secretary, as they have done really in the last 20 years, as the top civil servant.44
Reduced access to the Prime Minister would therefore mean “it is going to be the Cabinet Secretary who is the top dog”, and not the Head of the Civil Service.45 Lord Hennessy concurred: “the Cabinet Secretary will always be the top dog because of the nature of the job [...] the Cabinet Secretary is the one in terms of access, clout, visibility and tradition.”46
34. Lord Hennessy considered that any downgrading of the role might prevent the new Head of the Civil Service from fulfilling what he saw as a vital role at the top of the Civil Service— having the authority and ear of the Prime Minister so the incumbent of the role “really will speak truth unto power”.47
35. Sir Douglas Wass, who had held the role of Head of the Civil Service but not that of Cabinet Secretary, disagreed, arguing that from his experience, it was easier for the Head of the Civil Service (HCS) to speak truth to power—to speak frankly to the Prime Minister on matters of Civil Service reform, and to defend the Civil Service if necessary—if he or she did not also have the position of Cabinet Secretary.48 Sir Douglas also suggested that:
there would be some positive value in having the Prime Minister advised not only by the Cabinet Secretary but also by the HCS, who would not necessarily have the same point of view and might indeed take slightly different positions.49
36. Lord Wilson countered Sir Douglas’ argument:
There was a suggestion [...] that someone who is Head of the Civil Service as well as Cabinet Secretary would find it difficult to speak truth to the Prime Minister. I think
42 Qq 317, 318 43 Q 5 44 Q 17 [Lord Armstrong] 45 Q 47 46 Q 211 47 Q 203 The phrase ‘speak truth unto power’ is attributed to mid-twentieth century Quakers. 48 Ev 102 49 Ibid.
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 17
the opposite is true: you are in a better position if you have the full weight rather than half the weight of the job.50
He further argued that the concerns of former Cabinet Secretaries about splitting the roles of Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary did not derive from an unwillingness to contemplate change:
I do not see that as being about being Sir Humphrey; it is about trying to hold on to what we have struggled to acquire culturally over a long period of time. I am worried that taking [the role of head of the Civil Service] back into a Department and making it a sideline of a busy Permanent Secretary, marginalising it, is a signal that it is going back into the past.51
All I am trying to argue for is what I think, on the basis of my experience, does work, and I feel quite strongly about it.52
37. The active working relationship between the Head of the Civil Service and both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will be critical to the successful implementation of Government policies across Whitehall and the reform of the Civil Service. For this reason the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister must ensure they meet the Head of the Civil Service regularly. Again, only time will tell whether the two offices can maintain parity of esteem in the eyes of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
38. The job description document for the Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary states that the Head of the Civil Service has “the option to attend Cabinet as appropriate”. Sir Bob told us he would be attending Cabinet on a regular basis in his role, and that doing so would help him “to understand the issues around policy implementation and their relevance to my role as Head of the Civil Service, but it will not be the only way I will get that information”.53 Sir Bob did not confirm whether he would be sitting at the Cabinet table—when he had attended Cabinet before taking up the role of Head of the Civil Service he had not done so, as he had not been attending the meeting in the capacity of Head of the Civil Service.54
39. We welcome Sir Bob Kerslake’s statement that he will be attending Cabinet on a regular basis. We note that the job description for his new post indicates that the Head of the Civil Service only has “the option to attend Cabinet as appropriate”. We recommend that Sir Bob attend Cabinet as a matter of course, and be seated at the Cabinet table. We recommend below that a review of the working of the Head of the Civil Service position in practice be conducted in July 2012. The report of that review should include specific details of the number of meetings held between the Prime Minister and Sir Bob Kerslake, and the number of occasions on which Sir Bob has attended Cabinet.
50 Q 120 51 Q 101 52 Q 114 53 Q 547 54 Qq 544, 545, 546
18 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
4 Time commitment of the Head of the Civil Service
40. The decision to recruit the new Head of the Civil Service from the cohort of serving Permanent Secretaries, and to provide that the incumbent would hold both roles concurrently, gave many of our witnesses cause for serious concern. These concerns fell into two categories: whether the duties of the Head of the Civil Service were less compatible with being a Permanent Secretary in another department than they were with also being Cabinet Secretary, and whether the challenges facing the Civil Service were so considerable that they required a full-time Head of the Civil Service.
41. The Prime Minister was clear in his view that having one person to fulfil the duties of both Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary was unsustainable, stating that:
it seems to me that the problem at the moment is that, by having the Cabinet Secretary also as head of the home civil service, the Cabinet Secretary, who should be a key policy guide, adviser and leader, is inevitably spending quite a lot of time on the vital issues of managing the civil service.55
42. The job application pack for the Head of the Civil Service role did not specify the time commitment required for the role; however, prior to taking up the post, Sir Bob Kerslake estimated that he would spend approximately two days a week on his Head of the Civil Service responsibilities.56 This would be a proportion of time similar to the 40 to 45% that his predecessors Lord Wilson and Lord Turnbull said they spent carrying out the duties of Head of the Civil Service, and a substantial increase from their predecessors Lord Armstrong and Lord Butler, who reported that they spent approximately 25% of their time in this role.57
43. Most former Heads of the Civil Service told us that it was easier to find the time to carry out the Head of the Civil Service duties as Cabinet Secretary rather than as a permanent secretary in another department. Lord Armstrong spoke in favour of the ability to “dovetail” the two jobs of Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary, arguing that the role of Head of the Civil Service
does not come in two days a week. It comes in bits and bobs. It is not a question of, “Oh well, today is Wednesday and I will be Head of the Civil Service today” [...] I do not think it is capable of being split two days a week on this and three days a week on that, or five days a week on this and two days a week on that.58
55 Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Liaison Committee on 8 November 2011, HC (2010-2012) 608 iv, Q335 56 Q 520 57 Q 27, Q 126 [Lord Wilson], Q 126 [Lord Turnbull] 58 Q 26 [Lord Armstrong]
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 19
Lord Butler warned that the Head of the Civil Service role was “pretty difficult to combine with being a Permanent Secretary/Head of a Department”.59 Lord Turnbull spoke of the proportion of his time he spent on Head of the Civil Service responsibilities and questioned “how on earth you do that in addition to being the Permanent Secretary of a major Department of State I have no idea”.60 Lord Wilson questioned which permanent secretaries would have sufficient spare time in their job to carry out their Head of the Civil Service responsibilities. He warned that
One of the problems is that whoever becomes Head of the Civil Service will find it very difficult if they are running a government department as Permanent Secretary to find enough time to give to the job.61
As a result, he said that he thought the “role [of Head of the Civil Service] would suffer”.62
44. Many of our academic witnesses concurred. Professor Talbot said that taking on the Head of the Civil Service role as a “second job to their key Permanent Secretary role” would be “completely unfeasible”.63 Professor Tony Dean of the University of Toronto, who has held the posts of Secretary of the Ontario Cabinet and Head of the Ontario Public Service concurrently, warned that “the job of a Permanent Secretary of a department is huge in its own right, and to combine that with the job of the Head of the Civil Service is going to be troublesome”.64 Speaking from his experience in public service in Canada, Professor Dean argued that that in a combined Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service role, the postholder “tends to be dealing with issues at the centre, either the Prime Minister or premier’s concerns or with corporate-level issues. If you start taking that job and mixing it with the issues of a department, you make it much more complex and you reduce its status.”65
45. We take very seriously the warnings we have received about the time commitment required of the new Head of the Civil Service and give notice to the Government that this new arrangement may not be sustainable. The Government must be prepared to revisit this structure in the light of experience.
46. In his evidence prior to Sir Bob Kerslake’s appointment, Lord Wilson predicted that the department where the Permanent Secretary had taken on the role of Head of the Civil Service would “end up with someone doing the job of Permanent Secretary other than the Permanent Secretary, if they are going to do it properly”.66 He further warned that if the new Head of the Civil Service was also running a major department, they would place their departmental responsibilities at a priority to their duties of the Head of the Civil Service, stating:
59 Q 26 [Lord Butler of Brockwell] 60 Q 126 [Lord Turnbull] 61 Q 85 62 Q 126 [Lord Wilson] 63 Q 213 64 Q 183 [Professor Dean] 65 Ibid. 66 Q 129
20 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
If you are in the Home Office, which I have run for three or four years, and you have a sudden crisis and the Minister wants to see you, you have to go to the Minister. Believe me, in the Home Office, the Minister wants to see you because something has just come out of a clear blue sky more often than you would think […]. The Department will take priority because the needs of the Department are imperative, they are there and they are now.67
47. The Minister for the Cabinet Office expressed bemusement that the issue had been raised: as there had never been a time when the Head of the Civil Service was a full time role, he did not understand why there should be a concern about the time commitment.68
48. Every Permanent Secretary who applied to be Head of the Civil Service was required to secure agreement from their Secretary of State to the proposed new commitment.69 Lord Wilson suggested—and Professor Talbot and Lord Hennessy later concurred—that it was possible that some permanent secretaries might, in effect, have been excluded from the role of Head of the Civil Service due to the demands of their existing role.70 The panel choosing the new Head of the Civil Service might not therefore have had an opportunity to choose from the most able Permanent Secretaries.
49. When asked whether the best candidate had been able to apply and take on the role of the Head of the Civil Service, the Minister stated:
Yes, I do think that. I look around, and there are a number of very strong candidates for this role.71
The Minister also spoke of the strength of Sir Bob Kerslake as a candidate.72 While Sir Bob accepted that candidates for the role had had to consider the challenges their department was facing but stated that he did not think that “any Permanent Secretary would be absolutely ruled in or out from doing this role in the future”.73
50. However, the Minister seemed to accept that permanent secretaries not in one of the major operational departments may have enjoyed an advantage in applying for the job::
At every stage it has been held, as a part-time role, by another senior mandarin. The difference on this occasion is that the role is shared with the Permanent Secretary in an operational Department, although it [the Department for Communities and Local Government] is much more of a policy department than an operational department.74
67 Q 127 68 Q 432 69 Q 304 70 Q 85, Q 221 71 Q 438 72 Ibid. 73 Q 558 74 Q 432
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 21
51. In his comment that the Department for Communities and Local Government is “much more of a policy department than an operational department”, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has acknowledged that certain permanent secretaries with high- profile operational responsibilities, such as those in the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, would find it harder to combine the two roles of Permanent Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, and would therefore be at a disadvantage in applying to be Head of the Civil Service. If the Head of the Civil Service were to become a full-time role, as we recommend below, there would be no constraint on who might apply.
52. When he appeared before us after his appointment and before taking up his new role, Sir Bob Kerslake set out how he planned to approach the simultaneous discharge of his responsibilities. He believed that his objectives in reforming the Civil Service went hand in hand with achieving Ministers’ own objectives for their departments:
Many of the things that will be on the Secretary of State’s agenda for change—better programme management, more flexible ways of working, a strong senior civil service cadre and flatter structures—are things that are most effectively implemented if they are done in a coordinated way across the civil service. Part of the argument to Secretaries of State is, “You all have goals and ambitions for your department; you have to save money and deliver more efficiently. You are likely to be able to deliver many of those goals as effectively, in fact more so, by collaborative working across the civil service.” [...] The argument here is not whether it is about Ministers or corporate leadership of the civil service. Actually, you deliver Ministers’ objectives through effective corporate leadership.75
53. In his evidence to us, Sir Bob recognised the danger of putting “too much time into one or other aspect of the job to the detriment of the other job”.76 To avoid this, Sir Bob said that he would very actively ensure that there was effective delegation across the team in his department.77 He told us that he had identified the specific tasks he would delegate to his deputy, David Prout.78 Sir Bob also confirmed that he would have regular meetings with the Communities and Local Government ministerial team for “their feedback directly as to whether or not things are falling between the cracks”.79
54. Ministers and Sir Bob have stressed that the changes to the role will be cost-neutral.80 In a Parliamentary written answer, Robert Neill MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Fire and Resilience, Thames Gateway and Olympics, Local Government and Planning) at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has stated that he does not expect any change in salary or costs for any DCLG director-general as a result of the appointment of Sir Bob Kerslake as Head of the Civil Service.81
75 Q 508 76 Q 520 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Q 523, 524, 525 81 HC Deb, 15 December 2011, col 848W
22 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
55. We note the arrangements which have been made to try to ensure the effective discharge of Sir Bob’s responsibilities as both Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government. We welcome Sir Bob Kerslake’s commitment to the considerable and important tasks required of the Head of the Civil Service, and the steps he has taken to ensure the continuity of management in the Department for Communities and Local Government while he is undertaking his role as Head of the Civil Service. We invite the Communities and Local Government Select Committee to monitor the effectiveness of this arrangement. We remain to be convinced that delegation of this nature will suit the role of Head of the Civil Service.
A full-time Head of the Civil Service? 56. Our report Change in Government: the agenda for leadership argued for strong leadership of Civil Service reform programmes from the centre of government, concluding that:
The challenges facing Whitehall will require a Civil Service reform programme more extensive in size and scope than attempted for many years. We have received little evidence that the Government is engaging with the factors that determine the success of such reform programmes, namely establishing the appropriate scope for change, setting clear objectives and timescales for reforms, and ensuring central coordination and political support [...].
A cultural change to accept new ideas, innovation, decentralisation, localism and the Big Society, necessary if these flagship government policies are to succeed, will only come with leadership and a clear plan.82
We concluded:
We consider that in preparing for the necessary reform there is no substitute for the development of a centre for the operation of Government which is truly world-class and properly equipped to support delivery departments throughout the reform process and beyond. The scale of the challenges faced by the Civil Service call for the establishment of such a corporate centre, headed by someone with the authority to insist on delivery across the Civil Service.83
57. Several of our witnesses suggested that the challenges facing the Civil Service may now be so sizeable that a full-time Head of the Civil Service is required. Lord Hennessy warned that:
reforming the Civil Service cannot be done on a truly part-time basis, with quick trips on Friday afternoons to benefit or tax offices. Running a big department plus that job is a recipe for constant fire fighting and desperate time management, with
82 Public Administration Select Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership, HC 714, para 108-109 83 Ibid. para 110
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 23
not enough time for thought or discussion on developing a strategy for Civil Service reform.84
58. Lord Wilson concurred that leadership from the top of the Civil Service was vital to tackle these challenges, stating:
I think the challenges facing the Civil Service now are or ought to be pretty substantial. Francis Maude made a speech last year saying there are vast new challenges for the Civil Service and outlining all of them. I read them and I thought, “Gosh, those are big, substantial challenges”; they require leadership and a good, active hands-on role in relation to your fellow permanent secretaries.85
59. A contrasting view was offered by Sir Douglas Wass, who told us that he did not think that the post and role of Head of the Civil Service (HCS) amounted to very much: “the designation HCS is now largely superfluous and could be dropped without any loss to the effectiveness with which the Civil Service is managed, either in terms of the formulation of the rules or their implementation”.86
60. The job description provided by the Cabinet Office during the application process set out what Lord Turnbull described as “a big workload.”87 Lord Wilson argued that there was a contrast between the job description for the Head of the Civil Service and the fact that the role was still a part-time position.88 He suggested that the part-time nature of the role would not enable the holder to work to develop the Civil Service of 2020, identified by the Minister for the Cabinet Office as “smaller and more strategic [...], modern and flexible, high performing, with the professional skills to drive efficiency and performance, flatter, less hierarchical, and more encouraging of innovation [and] able to deliver efficiently and effectively itself and through others.”89
61. Professor Dean concurred that the tasks and responsibilities set out in the job description described “a full-time leadership job”.90 He stated:
we have a national organisation with a global reach employing something like 450,000 workers, nationally and outside the country. A budget of something like £700 billion runs through the hands of the senior levels of that organisation. It has a massive change agenda, which you talked about in September in terms of leadership. Its work affects every aspect of people’s lives in the country and every aspect of business life. Would we look at an organisation of one-tenth the size and influence of that scope and think about giving leadership to a part-time Chief Executive Officer? I do not think so. The CEO job is huge. In public sector organisations generally we underestimate the importance of leadership, we do not elevate it enough or give it
84 Q 182 85 Q 131 [Lord Wilson] 86 Ev 102 87 Q 141 [Lord Turnbull] 88 Q 131 [Lord Wilson]
89 “Francis Maude’s speech to the Civil Service”, Cabinet Office website, 8th July 2010, cabinetoffice.gov.uk 90 Q 215 [Professor Dean]
24 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
enough focus. This is a job that requires dedicated leadership, particularly given the scope of the change agenda in front of you.91
In his additional evidence to the Committee he tackled head-on the assumptions behind establishing a part-time post:
Like other aspects of legacy thinking in public sector organizations, just because the ‘Head of Service’ job has been one part of the broader job of the Cabinet Secretary, it does not mean that the job should always be part-time. Far from it. This was an opportunity to make the position a full-time during a period of upheaval and challenge in the country and in the Civil Service. The decision to proceed with a part-time and bifurcated CEO model downplays the importance of leadership in driving organizational change and building high-performing organizations. It is an opportunity missed.92
62. Professor David Richards and Professor Martin Smith, of the University of Sheffield, suggested that there was a “something of a contradiction” between the indication of a growth in the workload of the role of the Head of the Civil Service, and the fact that the position was still “deemed to be only a part-time job equating to the equivalent of two days a week”.93
63. Ahead of taking up the post, Sir Bob Kerslake set out four priorities for his time as Head of the Civil Service:
• Be a powerful leader of change as well as a visible leader of the service;
• Establish strong and effective relationships with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Ministers, the Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretaries;
• Move the Civil Service towards a more corporate, shared model of management whilst retaining the key principle of the Permanent Secretary’s accountability to their Secretary of State and to Parliament;
• With the Cabinet Secretary, effectively performance manage the Permanent Secretary cadre and where necessary take action to ensure that the right capacity is in place to deliver on the Government’s priorities.94
64. He also explained the five tests he would use to measure his success in the role:
The first test is whether I have achieved a level of visibility across the civil service about what I do and what the change agenda is. That is the first test. The second test is one you alluded to. I work collaboratively with the Cabinet Secretary on a shared agenda for change in the Civil Service. A third test will be that we are strengthening the capacity of the Civil Service to deliver on the Government’s agenda, which is after
91 Q 183 [Professor Dean] 92 Ev 105 93 Ev 91 94 Ev 104
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 25
all the most critical part of my job. A fourth test will be whether I have put in place effective performance management arrangements that ensure that I know how individual Permanent Secretaries are performing. The final test is that I have harnessed the capability and capacity of the senior civil service on an agenda for change.95
65. The Minister for the Cabinet Office told us that he intends to meet “very frequently” with the Sir Bob Kerslake. This will include weekly personal meetings and he intends for Sir Bob to join other relevant meetings with the Minister.96
66. The position of the Head of the Civil Service is currently a part-time role, as it has been ever since the position was created in 1919. Given the considerable upheaval in the Civil Service as it tackles the challenges of a new role against the background of substantial public service reform and significant spending reductions, a thorough consideration of whether a full time Head of the Civil Service is now required would have been timely. In view of the evidence we have taken in this inquiry, a full-time Head of the Civil Service is the logical conclusion to be drawn from our previous report, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership, which recommended the establishment of a change programme involving a stronger centre of Government, and the top management of all departments. In this change programme, the Head of the Civil Service ought to be responsible for the engagement of departments with change and reform programmes, the alignment of departmental change programmes across government, and the follow-through to ensure that change is successful. This will be difficult to achieve alongside the role of a departmental permanent secretary.
67. We welcome Sir Bob Kerslake’s commitment to his new role and we respect his intention to give it the full attention it deserves. He has set himself an ambitious list of priorities and measures by which his he will judge his success. We doubt whether he will be able to fulfil all the duties listed in his lengthy job description, and achieve his priorities, in the two days a week allocated for the post. We recommend that the Government monitors the effectiveness of these changes and conducts a full review of the working of the Head of the Civil Service position in July 2012 to consider whether a full-time Head of the Civil Service is required to provide the Civil Service with the necessary organisational leadership.
95 Q 512 96 Q 434
26 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
5 Leadership at the top of the Civil Service
Lines of accountability for Permanent Secretaries 68. At the start of our inquiry there was some confusion from witnesses as to how the reporting lines and dividing lines between the roles of Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office would work in practice. Lord Hennessy warned that the “costs in human terms and confusion terms [of the new structure] are very high”,97 whilst journalist Sue Cameron suggested it was “a tremendous muddle”.98 When asked his view of the new arrangements, Lord Armstrong told us that he was pleased he did not have to work with them,99 and Lord Wilson suggested that it would be difficult to make work:
I never used to have to ask myself, “Am I acting as Cabinet Secretary or as Head of the Civil Service?” because the two were integral. I think the jagged edge you get is very, very awkward to make work. The Cabinet is better served by having one man or woman they can go and talk to who has got it all within their compass.100
When asked if he would have applied for the job as a “senior civil servant who was ambitious” Lord Butler’s response was emphatic:
No.101
69. Much of the confusion about the new structure was addressed during the inquiry, when the Cabinet Office provided us with the organisation chart and tables setting out the different responsibilities for the Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary.102 While Sir Gus O’Donnell accepted that the system was more complex, he denied that it was messy, arguing that the organisation chart showed that the lines of accountability were now clear.103
70. We were told then that not all permanent secretaries would report to Sir Bob Kerslake. Those in charge of so-called ‘cross-cutting’ functions were to report to the Cabinet Secretary, and those in charge of ‘delivery’ functions would report to the Head of the Civil Service. Sir Gus gave examples: the Chief Scientist, the National Statistician and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury were to report to Jeremy Heywood as Cabinet Secretary.104 He admitted that there was “no perfect dividing line” between the two sets of permanent secretaries. He insisted that the reporting lines would be clear.105
97 Q 188 [Lord Hennessy] 98 Q 234 [Sue Cameron] 99 Q 55 [Lord Armstrong] 100 Q 110 101 Q 63 102 See Appendix 1 and paragraphs 26 and 27 above 103 QQ 271, 272 104 Q 276 105 Q 298
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 27
71. We asked Sir Bob Kerslake to set out the division of responsibilities between Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, showing which permanent secretary would report to whom. He consequently sent us the following note and table:
Reporting lines for Permanent Secretaries (and other roles currently managed by Sir Gus O’Donnell) will be split between the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service. The Cabinet Secretary will be responsible for Secretariats and other cross- cutting functions (including HMT); and for foreign policy (including FCO and DfID). The Head of the Civil Service will be responsible for the domestic policy departments, and for the devolved administrations.106
The full list of reporting lines for Permanent Secretaries is set out in Table 2.
Table 2: Reporting lines for Permanent Secretaries
Cabinet Secretary Head of the Civil Service Permanent Secretaries Simon Fraser (FCO) Lin Homer (DfT) Mark Lowcock (DfID) Ursula Brennan (MoD) Nick MacPherson (HMT) Una O’Brien (DH) JIC Chairman Martin Donnelly (BIS) Peter Ricketts (NSA) Jonathan Stephens (DCMS) Ivan Rogers (EGIS) Moira Wallace (DECC) Paul Jenkins (TSol) Bronwyn Hill (Defra) Stephen Laws (Parliamentary Counsel) Perm Sec Department for Education John Beddington (Chief Scientist) Ian Watmore (CO) Jil Matheson (ONS) Robert Devereux (DWP) Perm Sec HM Revenue and Customs Helen Ghosh (HO) Suma Chakrabati (MoJ) Perm Sec Northern Ireland Civil Service Peter Housden (Scottish Government) Gil Morgan (WAG) David Nicholson (NHS) Other direct reports Chris Wormald (DPMO) As per departmental responsibilities. Melanie Dawes (EDS) Sue Gray (Propriety and Ethics) Rachel Hopcroft (PPS Cab Sec) PPS No.10 Source: Additional evidence from Sir Bob Kerslake (HCS 11, Ev 109 )
106 See Appendix 1
28 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
72. We asked our previous witnesses to comment on the detail of the proposed arrangements. Professor Dean told us that it was inadvisable to split supervision of permanent secretaries, arguing instead that the responsibility should fall solely to the Head of the Civil Service.107 This would be, he argued, one of the critical factors in the success of the role.108 Professor Dean observed that the establishment of a single leadership figure at the top of the Civil Service was, in management terms, vital: “almost without exception, in the large majority of organisations in the public and private sectors it is usual to see a single, accountable executive or CEO appointed with responsibility to run the organization. It is important that everyone in the organization knows who is in charge […] It is anomalous [that] the UK’s Civil Service is to be jointly led at the top”.109
73. While Professor Dean acknowledged that it might be desirable to split the roles of the Cabinet Secretary and to redistribute them in order to make the roles “more manageable and effective”, he argued that there should only be one single leadership figure at the top of the Civil Service, stating that: “no successful, high-performing organization creates ambiguity about who is ultimately in charge of the day-to-day operations of the organization. This is particularly so where there is a significant change agenda and a need for a massive cultural transformation”.110 He considered that there should be a single point of oversight of permanent secretaries, who comprised the senior leadership team of the Civil Service, and he criticised the decision to divide arrangements for leadership and oversight of permanent secretaries: “the distinction between ‘service’ and ‘cross-cutting’ departments in the context of [an] organizational change [seeking to promote cross- departmental working] is somewhat artificial and more than a little contrived.”111
74. The division in reporting structures between cross-cutting and delivery permanent secretaries is linked to a wider concern of several of our witnesses. Professor Colin Talbot argued that the split between the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service was a separation of the roles of policy making and implementation, which he believed to be the “one big weakness” of the British Civil Service.112
75. When questioned by the Liaison Committee whether he was in danger of separating policy from execution by pressing for the change, the Prime Minister stated:
No, because I do not accept what Robin Butler says—that this new Head of the Civil Service will not have a direct relationship with the Prime Minister. I am quite capable of having a relationship with two people, rather than one—in this sense. Perhaps a future Prime Minister will take a different view and will go back to what has been done before. I really feel, in my bones, this is the right decision from what I have seen about how it works.113
107 Q 212 [Professor Dean] 108 Ibid. 109 Ev 105 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Q 191 113 Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Liaison Committee on 8 November 2011, HC (2010-2012) 608 iv Q 356
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 29
76. Sir Gus O’Donnell insisted that dividing the reporting lines of permanent secretaries was an improvement from having 36 direct reports to one individual, as had been the case under him.114 Lord Turnbull also suggested that the responsibility of managing every permanent secretary had required a considerable time commitment from former Heads of the Civil Service:
I had two meetings a year with every Permanent Secretary—probably 35 of them— one to say, “What are you trying to do this year?” and secondly to come back and say, “And what did you do? How much of this have you achieved?” This in turn led to a discussion about pay, promotion or whatever.115
77. Sir Bob Kerslake dismissed Professor Dean’s suggestion that it was necessary for all permanent secretaries to report directly to him. He stressed that he would be working closely with the permanent secretaries who were to report to Jeremy Heywood:
I will have a relationship with all permanent secretaries in one way or another, not least because they attend the regular weekly meetings we have and they are likely to be participants in the cross-Whitehall civil servant groups that we have in the future. So this is not simply a question of having a relationship with those who report to me. I will also link in with other permanent secretaries as well and they will be part of leading the change agenda that I have spoken about.116
Sir Bob also stated that all permanent secretaries, whether they reported to him or the Cabinet Secretary, would “be held accountable for their contribution towards the change agenda” through the performance management structure.117
78. The Minister, Francis Maude, told us that the new structure should not be judged on the organisation chart, but instead on its success in practice, a fact of which he was confident:
I hear criticisms that the wiring looks complicated and all of that: this is much more about chemistry than physics; it is much more about how you make it work in practice than how the organogram and structural engineering look. This will work, I am confident of that, but we will need to make it work.118
Lord Wilson agreed that the personalities involved would be crucial, and that the Civil Service would “make it work [...] The person doing the job may have a terrifically good relationship with the centre, manage to spend time on that relationship and make it work”.119
114 Q 276 115 Q 126 [Lord Turnbull] 116 Q 509 117 Q 510 118 Q 440 119 Q 132
30 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
79. Dividing the reports structure for departmental permanent secretaries and heads of secretariats between ‘service’ and ‘cross-cutting’ functions not only reflects the traditional quasi-independence of Whitehall departments from the centre, but also attempts to reflect the limitations of one individual to manage so many people. The danger is that the divided reporting line structure may lead to a divided organisation and divided and weak leadership. Strong, undivided leadership is essential to governance of the Civil Service and will require the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service to act as one. We recommend that the July 2012 review of the operation of the new structure includes an assessment of this issue, and of whether the division of permanent secretary reports is the right one.
80. We agree with the Minister that the new structure at the top of the Civil Service should be judged on how it works in practice. The success of this new structure will inevitably depend on the personal chemistry both between the three individuals, Sir Jeremy Heywood, Sir Bob Kerslake and Ian Watmore, and between them and the Ministers they serve. The effectiveness of this arrangement is therefore inherently unstable and must certainly be reviewed if any of the three personnel are changed. Any failure of that personal chemistry could have serious consequences for the governance and leadership of the Civil Service.
Effect on Civil Service reform 81. As the conclusions of our reports on Change in Government: the agenda for leadership and Good Governance and Civil Service Reform: 'End of Term' report on Whitehall plans for structural reform emphasise, leadership is of critical importance as Whitehall faces the challenge of fundamentally changing the way it works.
82. Several witnesses raised concerns about the impact on Civil Service reform of dividing Sir Gus O’Donnell’s role. Lord Butler warned that the change in job roles would be “not so good from the Prime Minister’s point of view” as it would affect his ability to drive Civil Service reform and his policy agenda through Whitehall.120 Lord Turnbull agreed, arguing that:
The reason I do not like this scheme is because I think it will weaken the apparatus for bringing about reform of the kind this Committee has advocated. The Cabinet Secretary, with a close link to the Prime Minister, generates an authority. If you are trying to persuade the Civil Service to swallow some difficult medicine, the fact that the person leading the service has the authority of the Prime Minister means that you have more authority in persuading your departmental colleagues to go down this line of accepting change. By fragmenting the job, and particularly marginalising the titular Head of the Civil Service, as we fear, you will weaken the ability to drive a major programme of change.121
120 Q 6 121 Q 102
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 31
Lord Wilson cautioned that
I think the message will be that the management and role of the [Civil] Service is being given less weight in the inner circle.122
83. Lord Hennessy concurred, arguing that while the new structure might suit the preferences of the Prime Minister and the strengths of Jeremy Heywood, it “does not provide the strength needed by the Civil Service as a profession and a federation of departments”.123
84. The Minister disagreed with this suggestion, stating that
Prime Ministers will generally not be intimately involved in the day-to-day running of the Civil Service; that has never been the case. The Prime Minister’s ability to influence what happens in the Civil Service, to drive a process of Civil Service reform, will remain as strong as it has ever been. It will be stronger, because there will be someone whose primary focus, at the centre of Government, is driving Civil Service reform delivery.124
85. Our witnesses also suggested that the new structure at the top of the Civil Service would “create uncertainty, particularly on the driving of reform” in Whitehall.125 Lord Butler concurred, warning that:
On the basis of the document [the job description for the role of the Head of the Civil Service], three people are going to lead it [Civil Service reform]: the Minister in the Cabinet Office, the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office and the Head of the Civil Service. I think that that does represent a bit of a problem, because it is a divided responsibility. Anything can work if personalities work together, but, as you will have understood, my prejudice is that it works better if there is a single responsibility both on the Civil Service side and on the ministerial side.126
86. Sir Gus O'Donnell denied that this would be the case, stating that Sir Bob Kerslake would be “in first command” and would have primary responsibility for Civil Service reform.127 In his evidence Sir Bob agreed that he would be in charge of bringing about change in Whitehall, but that he would be working with and engaging with the permanent secretary cadre to achieve change.128 He argued that Civil Service reform would be more likely to succeed if permanent secretaries were involved in the change process:129
I don’t expect to do it all myself. I expect others to be part of delivering that agenda. Different parts of the agenda can be led by other permanent secretaries. Indeed it is
122 Q 95 [Lord Wilson] 123 Q 182 124 Q 433 125 Q 235 [Peter Riddell] 126 Q 52 [Lord Butler] 127 Q 309, 310 128 Q 540 129 Q 561
32 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
both essential that I do so and beneficial in terms of getting different perspectives. However, in terms of whose name is on it overall, that is clearly myself.130
87. Sir Bob also confirmed that he would be bringing in a Director General for Civil Service reform in the Cabinet Office.131 This post had been advertised internally in 2011 but no appointment was made: arrangements were made for “an alternative team-based approach” led by two Senior Civil Service level 2 executive directors.132 We raised our concerns at the failure to recruit for this post in our September 2011 report Change in Government: the agenda for leadership, and suggested that it might suggest a lack of commitment to fundamental restructuring at senior official level.133
88. That report also highlighted the tendency of the Civil Service to work in departmental silos, and found that this hampered cross-departmental reform efforts.134 To address this, we recommended “a world class centre for the operation of government” involving the “establishment of a change programme involving the top management of all departments, including the centre of Government, which will identify the barriers to progress”.135
89. In the Government’s response, the Minister for the Cabinet Office recognised the need for a “cross-departmental approach” to Civil Service reform, but argued that instead of a strong centre of government to drive reform, it “must remain a collective endeavour”:
The Government believes that the leadership of the Civil Service, and of reform, must remain a collective endeavour. As Secretaries of State are ultimately responsible for the performance of their Departments, so their Permanent Secretaries have responsibility for developing and leading change management programmes in their Departments, and are best placed to work with their Boards and senior leadership teams to lead and manage change, including engaging with staff.136
90. We welcome Sir Bob Kerslake’s commitment to recruit a Director General for Civil Service reform which reflects a recommendation of PASC’s earlier report Change in Government: the agenda for leadership: the role is necessary to drive reform from the highest levels in the Cabinet Office. We are disappointed to note that Ministers have not yet accepted the need to strengthen the centre of government to lead reform across Whitehall. We believe that the Head of the Civil Service will come to support this idea. Again, we recommend that this issue is reassessed in the July 2012 review of the new structure which we have proposed.
130 Q 559 131 Q 521 132 Civil Service Commission, Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11, HC 1180, p 8; Public Administration Select Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership, HC 714, para 81 133 Public Administration Select Committee, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership, para 81 134 Ibid. para 30 135 Ibid. para 106 136 Public Administration Select Committee, Eighteenth Report of Session 2010-12, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership: Further Report with the Government Responses to the Committee’s Eleventh, Thirteenth and Fifteenth Reports of Session 2010-12, HC 1746, Appendix 1
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 33
Staffing and offices for the new Head of the Civil Service. 91. Sir Gus O'Donnell confirmed that Sir Bob Kerslake and Sir Jeremy Heywood were to have “offices right next to each other [...] 50 paces away from either the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister”.137 They would “work very closely together as a team”138, and were to be supported by one private office.139 This was, Lord Hennessy argued, a crucial point: Sir Bob Kerslake had to be based in the Cabinet Office if he was to have “a proper job”.140
92. Sir Gus suggested that Sir Bob Kerslake might need greater resources in his role as Head of the Civil Service than the private office which would support both him and Jeremy Heywood.141 Sir Bob confirmed that the Civil Service reform team in the Cabinet Office will be reporting directly to him, and that he will be strengthening the capacity of this team.142 He stated:
We are going to strengthen some of the capacity of things like communications as well, which are a key part of visible leadership. So I will make absolutely sure that I have strong support arrangements, both from the Cabinet Office to support me in that role, and within CLG.143
93. The part-time nature of the role means that for the majority of Sir Bob’s time he will be not physically be present in the Cabinet Office, and based instead at the Department for Communities and Local Government, one mile away. The physical separation of Sir Bob Kerslake’s two roles increases the risk that the Head of the Civil Service may be excluded from key discussions: such exclusions could not but adversely affect his standing, and would undermine his crucial leadership role. They would also restrict his ability to fulfil the necessary constitutional requirement that the Head of the Civil Service be able to speak truth to power.
94. We welcome the fact that Sir Bob Kerslake will be provided with office accommodation to give him the opportunity of equal access to the Prime Minister. We expect this commitment to be delivered in practice. Sir Bob will require considerable staffing support to achieve the Government’s objectives for Civil Service on a part-time basis. We recommend that the staffing for the Head of the Civil Service position is considered as part of the review of the new structure to take place by July 2012.
137 Q 274 138 Ibid. 139 Q 296 140 Q 210 141 Q 296 142 Q 505 143 Q 520
34 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
The role of Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office 95. Lord Turnbull suggested that the most important division of Sir Gus O'Donnell’s current responsibilities was not the one between the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service roles, but the separation of the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office from the Head of the Civil Service. This position has been considerably enhanced under the new structure, a move welcomed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office: it is now a full- time post, where previously it was thought to occupy on average only 10% of Sir Gus O’Donnell’s time.144
96. Lord Turnbull warned that the new structure, enhancing the status of Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, would “begin to reduce the status of this Head of the Civil Service, and then make it more difficult to lead this programme of change”.145 He said:
That is the difficulty. Apart from the Head of the Civil Service having a day job to do; the Watmore job is connected to the second hardwired levers of power. There are the levers through the Prime Minister, and then there are all those hard issues in the Civil Service: workforce planning, recruitment, reward, industrial relations, compensation, pensions, etc. That is the heart of the Francis Maude agenda, so by the time you have hollowed that out, what then is left?146
Lord Turnbull predicted that “inevitably what will happen is that the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office becomes in effect the COO [Chief Operating Officer] of this organisation, and the Head of the Civil Service becomes a more representational, titular thing”.147
97. Sir Gus O’Donnell indicated that consideration had been given to combining the role of Head of the Civil Service with that of Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, and that this had been rejected following a discussion with Ian Watmore.148 Sir Gus told us that Mr Watmore had not applied for the role of Head of the Civil Service.149
98. Combining the roles of Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office would, Peter Riddell suggested, avoid the downgrading of the role of Head of the Civil Service that resulted in splitting the role from that of the Cabinet Secretary.150
99. Concerns that the role of Head of the Civil Service would be downgraded and sidelined by the Cabinet Office under the new arrangements were expressed to us before we received the detailed organisation chart and tables of responsibilities. It is now clear that the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office is intended to report to the Head of the Civil Service and that the Head of the Civil Service will work from an office in the Cabinet Office. Though we welcome this as logical, this reporting line may
144 Q 299 145 Q 105 146 Q 96 147 Q 131 [Lord Turnbull] 148 Q 284 149 Ibid. 150 Q 233
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 35 have less real relevance in practice since the Head of the Civil Service will be devoting the majority of his time to his departmental role.
100. Our reports Change in Government: the agenda for leadership and Good Governance and Civil Service Reform: 'End of Term' report on Whitehall plans for structural reform emphasised the importance of a strong centre of government to drive forward change and transformation programmes, coordinated by the Cabinet Office. It could be argued that it is not the old Cabinet Secretary role which is now being split, but the role of Head of the Civil Service, which is being split between a part-time departmental Permanent Secretary and a junior Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office. We believe the logical development would have been be to combine the role of Head of the Civil Service with the far more compatible role of Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office to create a role which could concentrate full time on driving forward Civil Service reform. This would have helped to provide the Cabinet Office with the authority to break down departmental silos and bureaucratic inertia in order to bring about change.
36 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
6 Conclusion
101. We view the job of Head of the Civil Service as central to the success of the Government’s programme for reform of the Civil Service, and thus the wider public sector reform agenda. The Civil Service requires strong leadership from the centre to meet the challenges of devolution of power and reduced public spending. The structure of the senior leadership of the Civil Service is also crucial to the role of the Civil Service as an institution and is one of the checks and balances in our uncodified constitution. These changes raise fundamental question about the leadership of the Civil Service. In our report, Change in Government: the Agenda for Leadership, we identified “Leadership” as the first of six key principles of good governance and change management. The success of the government’s public service reform agenda depends upon the successful implementation of change in government. We therefore attach the highest importance to the structure of leadership at the top of the Civil Service.
102. The division of the roles of Cabinet Secretary, Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office has prompted serious concerns from former Cabinet Secretaries, academics, and Whitehall commentators that this leadership would be lacking and that the Civil Service reform would falter under the new model. They also believe that the role of the Head of the Civil Service was being ‘downgraded’, which would have serious implications for the Civil Service as a whole.
103. To alleviate these concerns we require assurances about the good working relationships between the Prime Minister, Sir Jeremy Heywood and Sir Bob Kerslake, and the parity of status between Sir Bob and Sir Jeremy. We note that both Sir Bob Kerslake and the Minister for the Cabinet Office stated that they intend there to be frequent meetings between Sir Bob and the Prime Minister, that Sir Bob would attend Cabinet, and that they intend to establish in practice equal seniority between the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary. Achievement of these intentions will depend on the development of good working practices and appropriate political direction.
104. We note the fact that the Prime Minister feels “in his bones” that the decision to split the roles of Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary is the right one. However, we consider that the success of the new structure at the top of the Civil Service will depend on the complementary personalities of the three individuals filling the three roles. They are said to reflect the respective strengths of Sir Bob Kerslake, Sir Jeremy Heywood and Ian Watmore. This remains to be proved. Success will depend on how Ministers, and the Prime Minister in particular, respect the new structure and the roles of the individuals in it. Any questions arising about Sir Bob Kerslake’s role, or about his parity of status with Sir Jeremy Heywood will have to be resolved immediately they arise. The review of the operation of the new structure in the summer of 2012 which we have recommended should address these questions, as well as any implications for the role of Cabinet Secretary that may have emerged.
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 37
105. We are not convinced that the role of the Head of the Civil Service is compatible with the role of a permanent secretary of a major department of state. We expect the combined workload to be excessive. This reinforces the conclusion that, when reviewing the new structure in July 2012, as we recommend, the Government should consider whether a full- time Head of the Civil Service, combining the roles of Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, would be more effective in driving forward the necessary and substantial reforms required across Whitehall.
38 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
Conclusions and recommendations
The combined role of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service 1. The role of Head of the Civil Service, and the relationship between the Head of the Civil Service and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, are matters of vital importance to good governance and define the nature of the Civil Service itself. Our starting point for this inquiry was the recognition that, while the structure in which one individual holds the combined roles of Cabinet Secretary, Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office and Head of the Civil Service had been perceived to be an effective arrangement for leadership of the Civil Service and provision of support to the Prime Minister over the last thirty years, the Civil Service faces new and substantial challenges to reform, discussed in detail in PASC’s recent report on Change in Government: the agenda for leadership. Might an alternative arrangement at the top of the Civil Service prove more effective? Existing structures may have supported Civil Service reform through periods of incremental change: but the present agenda for reform, which includes substantial cuts in administrative budgets alongside considerable transfers of functions from the centre, requires a different approach to Civil Service leadership. It is in this context that we examined the decision to review and adapt the structure at the top of the Civil Service. (Paragraph 16)
The role of Parliament in changing Civil Service structures 2. We suggest that, in the interests of good and transparent government, a discussion with PASC ahead of the decision to divide Sir Gus O'Donnell’s role as Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service would have been beneficial. (Paragraph 17)
3. The post of Head of the Civil Service is a Civil Service appointment, regulated by the First Civil Service Commissioner, not a public appointment regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It therefore falls outside the scope of posts which have been considered by the Government and the Liaison Committee as ones for which the preferred candidate should be subject to a Select Committee pre- appointment hearing. Sir Bob Kerslake, as Head-designate of the Civil Service, readily agreed to appear before PASC before taking up the appointment. We considered this a valuable opportunity for him to place on record how he planned to discharge his responsibilities, and we are grateful to him for his readiness to appear. This evidence session was not a pre-appointment hearing to examine his professional competence. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to make clear that we are, on the basis of the hearing, entirely satisfied that he has the competencies to discharge his responsibilities. (Paragraph 18)
The proposed arrangements 4. It is reasonable for a prime minister to choose who he or she wants at the most senior levels of the Civil Service and for him to decide which structures best suit the requirements of the government and their respective capabilities. However, these arrangements must ensure that the Head of the Civil Service has the seniority, the
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 39
respect and the ear of the Prime Minister in order to fulfil his role, particularly one essential role of the Civil Service: the requirement to speak truth to power. Time will tell whether or not the new Head of the Civil Service has the necessary authority to carry out his functions. (Paragraph 31)
Access to the Prime Minister 5. The active working relationship between the Head of the Civil Service and both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will be critical to the successful implementation of Government policies across Whitehall and the reform of the Civil Service. For this reason the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister must ensure they meet the Head of the Civil Service regularly. Again, only time will tell whether the two offices can maintain parity of esteem in the eyes of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. (Paragraph 38)
6. We welcome Sir Bob Kerslake’s statement that he will be attending Cabinet on a regular basis. We note that the job description for his new post indicates that the Head of the Civil Service only has “the option to attend Cabinet as appropriate”. We recommend that Sir Bob attend Cabinet as a matter of course, and be seated at the Cabinet table. We recommend below that a review of the working of the Head of the Civil Service position in practice be conducted in July 2012. The report of that review should include specific details of the number of meetings held between the Prime Minister and Sir Bob Kerslake, and the number of occasions on which Sir Bob has attended Cabinet. (Paragraph 40)
Time commitment of the Head of the Civil Service 7. We take very seriously the warnings we have received about the time commitment required of the new Head of the Civil Service and give notice to the Government that this new arrangement may not be sustainable. The Government must be prepared to revisit this structure in the light of experience. (Paragraph 46)
8. In his comment that the Department for Communities and Local Government is “much more of a policy department than an operational department”, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has acknowledged that certain permanent secretaries with high-profile operational responsibilities, such as those in the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, would find it harder to combine the two roles of Permanent Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, and would therefore be at a disadvantage in applying to be Head of the Civil Service. If the Head of the Civil Service were to become a full-time role, as we recommend below, there would be no constraint on who might apply. (Paragraph 52)
9. We note the arrangements which have been made to try to ensure the effective discharge of Sir Bob’s responsibilities as both Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government. We welcome Sir Bob Kerslake’s commitment to the considerable and important tasks required of the Head of the Civil Service, and the steps he has taken to ensure the continuity of management in the Department for Communities and Local Government while he is undertaking his role as Head of the Civil Service. We invite
40 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
the Communities and Local Government Select Committee to monitor the effectiveness of this arrangement. We remain to be convinced that delegation of this nature will suit the role of Head of the Civil Service. (Paragraph 56)
A full time Head of the Civil Service? 10. The position of the Head of the Civil Service is currently a part-time role, as it has been ever since the position was created in 1919. Given the considerable upheaval in the Civil Service as it tackles the challenges of a new role against the background of substantial public service reform and significant spending reductions, a thorough consideration of whether a full time Head of the Civil Service is now required would have been timely. In view of the evidence we have taken in this inquiry, a full-time Head of the Civil Service is the logical conclusion to be drawn from our previous report, Change in Government: the agenda for leadership, which recommended the establishment of a change programme involving a stronger centre of Government, and the top management of all departments. In this change programme, the Head of the Civil Service ought to be responsible for the engagement of departments with change and reform programmes, the alignment of departmental change programmes across government, and the follow-through to ensure that change is successful. This will be difficult to achieve alongside the role of a departmental permanent secretary. (Paragraph 67)
11. We welcome Sir Bob Kerslake’s commitment to his new role and we respect his intention to give it the full attention it deserves. He has set himself an ambitious list of priorities and measures by which his he will judge his success. We doubt whether he will be able to fulfil all the duties listed in his lengthy job description, and achieve his priorities, in the two days a week allocated for the post. We recommend that in July 2012 the Government conduct a full review of the working of the Head of the Civil Service position in practice to consider whether a full-time Head of the Civil Service is required to provide the Civil Service with the necessary organisational leadership. (Paragraph 68)
Lines of accountability for Permanent Secretaries 12. Dividing the reports structure for departmental permanent secretaries and heads of secretariats between ‘service’ and ‘cross-cutting’ functions not only reflects the traditional quasi-independence of Whitehall departments from the centre, but also attempts to reflect the limitations of one individual to manage so many people. The danger is that the divided reporting line structure may lead to a divided organisation and divided and weak leadership. Strong, undivided leadership is essential to governance of the Civil Service and will require the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service to act as one. We recommend that the July 2012 review of the operation of the new structure includes an assessment of this issue, and of whether the division of permanent secretary reports is the right one. (Paragraph 80)
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 41
13. We agree with the Minister that the new structure at the top of the Civil Service should be judged on how it works in practice. The success of this new structure will inevitably depend on the personal chemistry both between the three individuals, Sir Jeremy Heywood, Sir Bob Kerslake and Ian Watmore, and between them and the Ministers they serve. The effectiveness of this arrangement is therefore inherently unstable and must certainly be reviewed if any of the three personnel are changed. Any failure of that personal chemistry could have serious consequences for the governance and leadership of the Civil Service. (Paragraph 81)
Effect on Civil Service Reform 14. We welcome Sir Bob Kerslake’s commitment to recruit a Director General for Civil Service reform which reflects a recommendation of PASC’s earlier report Change in Government: the agenda for leadership: the role is necessary to drive reform from the highest levels in the Cabinet Office. We are disappointed to note that Ministers have not yet accepted the need to strengthen the centre of government to lead reform across Whitehall. We believe that the Head of the Civil Service will come to support this idea. Again, we recommend that this issue is reassessed in the July 2012 review of the new structure which we have proposed. (Paragraph 91)
Staffing and offices for the new Head of the Civil Service 15. The part-time nature of the role means that for the majority of Sir Bob’s time he will be not physically be present in the Cabinet Office, and based instead at the Department for Communities and Local Government, one mile away. The physical separation of Sir Bob Kerslake’s two roles increases the risk that the Head of the Civil Service may be excluded from key discussions: such exclusions could not but adversely affect his standing, and would undermine his crucial leadership role. They would also restrict his ability to fulfil the necessary constitutional requirement that the Head of the Civil Service be able to speak truth to power. (Paragraph 94)
16. We welcome the fact that Sir Bob Kerslake will be provided with office accommodation to give him the opportunity of equal access to the Prime Minister. We expect this commitment to be delivered in practice. Sir Bob will require considerable staffing support to achieve the Government’s objectives for Civil Service on a part-time basis. We recommend that the staffing for the Head of the Civil Service position is considered as part of the review of the new structure to take place by July 2012. (Paragraph 95)
42 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
The role of Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office 17. Concerns that the role of Head of the Civil Service would be downgraded and sidelined by the Cabinet Office under the new arrangements were expressed to us before we received the detailed organisation chart and tables of responsibilities. It is now clear that the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office is intended to report to the Head of the Civil Service and that the Head of the Civil Service will work from an office in the Cabinet Office. Though we welcome this as logical, this reporting line may have less real relevance in practice since the Head of the Civil Service will be devoting the majority of his time to his departmental role. (Paragraph 100)
18. Our reports Change in Government: the agenda for leadership and Good Governance and Civil Service Reform: 'End of Term' report on Whitehall plans for structural reform emphasised the importance of a strong centre of government to drive forward change and transformation programmes, coordinated by the Cabinet Office. It could be argued that it is not the old Cabinet Secretary role which is now being split, but the role of Head of the Civil Service, which is being split between a part-time departmental Permanent Secretary and a junior Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office. We believe the logical development would have been be to combine the role of Head of the Civil Service with the far more compatible role of Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office to create a role which could concentrate full time on driving forward Civil Service reform. This would have helped to provide the Cabinet Office with the authority to break down departmental silos and bureaucratic inertia in order to bring about change. (Paragraph 101)
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 43
Appendix 1: Letter from Sir Bob Kerslake to Mr Bernard Jenkin MP, Chair of PASC
Following our recent meeting and in advance of my appearance before your Committee next Monday, I thought it would be useful to set out in writing what qualities I believe I will bring to the role of Head of the Civil Service (HOCS) and to briefly explain what my approach to the role will be. I will, of course, be more than happy to cover these issues in more depth at my evidence session.
My credentials for the role
I have led change in big organisations across a wide range of the public sector for over 20 years, including transforming Sheffield from a failing to a top performing Council, successfully establishing the Homes and Communities Agency from two very different organisations, and delivering major change at DCLG. Each one of these jobs has involved taking bold decisions and leading radical change. In the case of Sheffield for example, the Council moved over a third of its budget from directly delivered to commissioned services.
I already spend a significant part of my time involved in driving cross-Whitehall projects, serving on the Steering and Spending Review Boards and chairing the Employee Relations and Public Services Boards. I believe that I am close enough to the Civil Service to see its strengths but also objective enough to know it has to move too.
I am realistic about the scale of the challenge and most importantly very enthusiastic about the role.
My approach to the role
I see the job as fundamentally being about two things: providing visible leadership and championing change. As we all know, Gus will be an immensely hard act to follow but I am determined to follow in his footsteps and to be known at all levels across the Civil Service.
Initially I see my priorities as Head of the Civil Service to:
• Be a powerful leader of change as well as a visible leader of the service;
• Establish strong and effective relationships with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Ministers, the Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretaries;
• Move the Civil Service towards a more corporate, shared model of management whilst retaining the key principle of the Permanent Secretary’s accountability to their Secretary of State and to Parliament;
• With the Cabinet Secretary, effectively performance manage the Permanent Secretary cadre and where necessary take action to ensure that the right capacity is in place to deliver on the Government’s priorities.
44 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
I believe that each of these represents a formidable challenge in its own right and will require a great deal of clarity of purpose and organisation if they are to be delivered alongside continuing to manage a department. They cannot be delivered by the Head of the Civil Service alone; strong and active engagement by Ministers, Non-Executive Directors, and Permanent Secretaries together with good support through the Cabinet Office will be essential.
For ease, I also attach a copy of the handouts that Sir Gus sent you in advance of his appearance on Wednesday 23 November, which sets out how the roles of the Cabinet Secretary and the HOCS will work together and the organogram of how it will all work.
Managing the two roles
In terms of managing the two jobs, I intend to do this by delegating more to my senior team in DCLG and by strengthening the support within the Cabinet Office. Over the past year good progress has already been made in DCLG on the Departmental Change Plan, the Business Plan and the Localism Bill (which has now received Royal Assent), which reduces pressure for the year ahead. As now I will have regular meetings with DCLG Ministers, my DGs and direct reports, and of course remain visible to the staff in my department. Again, I will be more than happy to cover this in more detail at next week’s session.
Finally, I very much see this as a “work in progress”. I will of course learn on the job and would very much welcome any suggestions that you or your Committee have on taking this forward, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue over the next few months and years. 15 December 2011
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 45
Formal Minutes
Tuesday 17 January 2012
Members present:
Mr Bernard Jenkin, in the Chair
Paul Flynn Priti Patel David Heyes Lindsay Roy Kelvin Hopkins
Draft Report (Leadership of Change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 105 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
A paper was appended to the Report.
Resolved, That the Report be the Nineteenth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 24 January at 10.00 am
46 Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary
Witnesses
Tuesday 1 November 2011 Page
Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB Ev 1
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO Ev 15
Tuesday 15 November 2011
Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Queen Mary, University of London, Professor Colin Talbot, University of Manchester and Professor Tony Dean, University of Toronto Ev 30
Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker Ev 38
Wednesday 23 November 2011
Sir Gus O’Donnell GCB, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Ev 47
Monday 28 November 2011
Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office Ev 64
Monday 19 December 2011
Sir Bob Kerslake, Permanent Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government and Head-designate of the Civil Service Ev 76
List of printed written evidence
1 Professor David Richards and Professor Martin Smith (HCS 01) Ev 91 2 David Laughrin (HCS 02) Ev 94 3 Rt Hon Peter Riddell (HCS 03) Ev 97 4 Professor Colin Talbot (HCS 04) Ev 98 5 Sue Cameron (HCS 05) Ev 100 6 Supplementary evidence submitted by Sir Douglas Wass GCB (HCS 06) Ev 102 7 Supplementary evidence submitted by Professor Tony Dean (HCS 08) Ev 104 8 Supplementary evidence submitted by Rt Hon Peter Riddell (HCS 09) Ev 105 9 Supplementary evidence submitted by the Cabinet Office (HCS 10) Ev 106 10 Supplementary evidence submitted by Sir Bob Kerslake (HCS 11) Ev 108
Leadership of change: new arrangements for the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary 47
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
The reference number of the Government’s response to each Report is printed in brackets after the HC printing number.
Session 2010–12 First Report Who does UK National Strategy? HC 435 (HC 713) Second Report Government Responses to the Committee’s Eighth HC 150 and Ninth reports of Session 2009-10 Third Report Equitable Life HC 485 (Cm 7960) Fourth Report Pre-appointment hearing for the dual post of First HC 601 Civil Service Commissioner and Commissioner for Public Appointments Fifth Report Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State HC 537 (Cm 8044) Sixth Report Who Does UK National Strategy? Further Report with HC 713 the Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2010-11 Seventh Report Smaller Government: What do Ministers do? HC 530 Eighth Report Cabinet Manual HC 900 (Cm 8213) First Special Report Cabinet Manual: Government Interim Response to HC 1127 the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2010-12 Ninth Report Pre-appointment hearing for the post of HC 1220-I Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Tenth Report Remuneration of the Parliamentary and Health HC 1350 Service Ombudsman Eleventh Report Good Governance and Civil Service Reform: ‘End of HC 901 Term’ report on Whitehall plans for structural reform Twelfth Report Government and IT — “a recipe for rip-offs”: time for HC 715-I a new approach Thirteenth Report Change in Government: the agenda for leadership HC 714 Fourteenth Report Public Appointments: regulation, recruitment and HC 1389 pay Fifteenth Report Smaller Government: What do Ministers do? Further HC 1540 Report Sixteenth Report Appointment of the Chair of the UK Statistics HC 910 Authority Seventeenth Report The Big Society HC 902 Eighteenth Report Change in Government: the agenda for leadership: HC 1746 Further Report
Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Public Administration Committee on Tuesday 1 November 2011
Members present Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair)
Alun Cairns Kelvin Hopkins Charlie Elphicke Greg Mulholland Paul Flynn Lindsay Roy David Heyes ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO, and Sir Douglas Wass GCB, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: Good morning to our witnesses, and thank Q4 Chair: Sir Douglas, in your previous existence you very much indeed for joining us for this first as Head of the Home Civil Service and Permanent evidence session on the role of the Head of the Home Secretary to the Treasury, you were on record as Civil Service, though it is now called the Head of the saying that that was a good arrangement and it worked Civil Service—“Home” has been deleted. Could you well, but you are now saying, because you are identify yourselves for the record please? unsighted about the present structure of the Civil Sir Douglas Wass: Douglas Wass. Service, you do not know whether that is still the best Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Robert Armstrong. arrangement. Would that be accurate? Lord Butler of Brockwell: Robin Butler. Sir Douglas Wass: I think it did work well. I was very fortunate in having a co-Head in Robert Armstrong, Q2 Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We have a who was a personal friend and a good colleague. We very distinguished panel. To begin with, what are your devised informal arrangements to consult and reactions to the announcement that the Head of the coordinate our activities. We had a regular meeting on Civil Service is to be split from the role of the Monday mornings when we reviewed matters of Cabinet Secretary? mutual concern, issues arising out of Civil Service Sir Douglas Wass: Could you give me an indication management and personnel matters. There was not a of how long you would like me to talk? great deal that I had to do as Head of the Civil Chair: I expect it would be quite useful if you each Service. The job of handling pay and complementing had three or four minutes on this opening question, Civil Service Departments was done lower down the but then it would be helpful if we had crisper hierarchy. Obviously I occasionally got involved when exchanges because otherwise we will not get through there was a sticky issue, but for the most part it was all our questions. Thank you for that question. a fairly light duty, which was fortunate because the Sir Douglas Wass: “Largely indifferent” is the duty of being Permanent Secretary to the Treasury answer. I do not think the post and role of the Head was very heavy. As I say, it worked well because I of Civil Service amounts to very much, particularly had a good relationship with Robert Armstrong, if you these days; it may have amounted to more 30 years will allow me to say so. ago when there was a more unified Civil Service with Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: And I with you a more rigid structure, and some sort of headship was Douglas. required to coordinate the various parts of the functioning. I do not know an awful lot about the Q5 Chair: Lord Armstrong, could you give us your structure of the Civil Service and the amount of view? delegation that exists to Heads of Departments to Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: There is a history to manage their affairs as they think best. I do not know this, of course. The post did not really begin until just how that works these days, but I assume that there is after the First World War with Warren Fisher, then it a good deal more delegation than there was in my day. went through Horace Wilson. In all those years it was I find it difficult to know what exactly the Head of the really attached to the Permanent Secretary to the Civil Service would do, what authority he would have, Treasury, until 1968 when the Civil Service and what value there would be in designating a Department was created. Sir William Armstrong went particular Permanent Secretary as Head of the Civil on to be the Permanent Secretary of that and became Service. I think that is all I want to say at the moment. the Head of the Civil Service. In 1981, when the Civil Service Department came to an end, its functions in Q3 Chair: Are each of you aware of the job relation to the Civil Service were divided between the specification that is being circulated for the new role, Treasury and the Cabinet Office and the question was which I myself cannot find at the moment? where the headship of the Civil Service should lie. Lord Butler of Brockwell: I certainly have it. Mrs Thatcher agreed that Douglas and I should do it Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Yes, I have it too. jointly. Then in 1983, when Douglas retired, she Ev 2 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB decided to revert to having a single appointment and Secretary is a win-win. From all points of view, I to leave it with the Cabinet Secretary. I think that was regret the change. a good arrangement. The strength of the arrangement is that being Head of the Civil Service is not a full Q7 Chair: Do you think the Prime Minister is time appointment, and is not going to be a full time making a mistake, and that, if he wants to have more appointment under the new dispensation. The strength control over Government Departments, he is actually for the occupant of the post, if it is the Cabinet throwing away one of the levers of power? Secretary, is his proximity to the Prime Minister. He, Lord Butler of Brockwell: I do, yes. I would not above all Permanent Secretaries, is in constant contact exaggerate it, but I think that that is the case. with the Prime Minister. In a sense the Head of the Civil Service cannot be a Q8 Chair: It has become apocryphal that everybody public representative of the Civil Service. He cannot in Number 10 is very frustrated. What, then, is the campaign outwardly for the Civil Service as one logic of doing this? What do you see as the logic from might do if one were the head of the Army or head of their point of view? How do you read it? the Air Force, or even less than that. The strength of Lord Butler of Brockwell: The explanation, by which the position there lies with his responsibilities for the I am not convinced, is that, since the General Election, welfare of the Civil Service, the proximity to the the role of both Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Prime Minister, and the ability to represent the needs Civil Service has grown, and has grown very heavy. I and views of the Civil Service to him or her and work can believe that, but, as Sir Douglas and Lord closely with him or her in the interests of the Civil Armstrong have said, I do not think that the role of Service. the Head of the Civil Service need be a very heavy and time taking one providing you have a good Q6 Chair: Lord Butler, in your evidence to the recent lieutenant. Each of us had a good lieutenant in the inquiry conducted by the House of Lords Constitution Cabinet Office who did most of the day-to-day work. Committee, you said that the Permanent Secretary of Of course, there are the recesses, when Ministers are a Department “could not often get an audience with away a lot; that enabled me at any rate to feel that I the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister's could get out on the road and go and see the interests were not really so much in running the Civil Departments. I am not persuaded by the reasons, as I Service, but the Cabinet Secretary can get that understand them, that the Government has given. I audience and so the Civil Service issues get a better think there is another reason. I have no absolute hearing”. For that reason you supported maintaining evidence for this, but I think that Jeremy Heywood the combined role. Despite the fact that the House of is less interested in personnel matters than in policy Lords Committee took a deal of evidence suggesting matters, and his preference is that his role should that the combined role did not work, they came down concentrate on the policy advice that the Cabinet in favour of your view. Do you still believe that a Secretary gives. Permanent Secretary, other than the Cabinet Secretary, would find it difficult to get the attention of the Q9 Chair: Do you think it is necessarily that he is Prime Minister? reducing the long-term perspectives collected around Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes, I do. I should just like the Prime Minister? Civil Service reform is one of to preface what I say by saying that nothing that I say those nerdy subjects that does not hit the 24-hour should be regarded as critical of the appointment of news agenda very often. Therefore, if the Cabinet Jeremy Heywood as Cabinet Secretary; I have a very Secretary is preoccupied with these longÐterm high regard for him. I do regret the splitting of the structural issues, he is being distracted from the things posts, for a number of reasons. I think that it is not so that help the Prime Minister with his day-to-day good for the Civil Service if the Cabinet Secretary is working. not Head of the Civil Service, for the reasons that the Lord Butler of Brockwell: I do not think so. During Cabinet Secretary gets more ready access to the Prime my time as Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Minister, and, with all the other things that a Prime Service we had a major programme of reform: the Minister has to do, it is not easy for the Prime Minister Next Steps programme. It was very useful to get the to find time for the affairs of the Civil Service. I think Prime Minister’s leverage to get those changes in that somebody who is not Cabinet Secretary will find place. My Permanent Secretary colleagues in the it more difficult to get access. I think it is less good Departments, around Whitehall, knew that I had the for the Civil Service in another way; that is that the Prime Minister’s support in that. I did not have to give post of Cabinet Secretary is a very prestigious one, a huge amount of my time to it because Peter Kemp and it is good for the morale of the Civil Service for was leading the programme and he was very effective. the Cabinet Secretary to be Head of the Civil Service. Chairman, if I may, I will just add one other thing, I also think that it is not so good from the Prime and that is: history is not on the side of having a Minister’s point of view. I found that, when there were separate Head of the Civil Service. There are three things that the Prime Minister wanted to have done— successive examples of Sir William Armstrong, not only personnel things but policy things—the Sir Douglas Allen—later Lord Croham—and Sir Ian leverage that I felt I had as Head of the Civil Service Bancroft—later Lord Bancroft—all of whom found it enabled me also to get a great deal of cooperation a very unsatisfying role. I think it is fair to say that it from my colleagues on policy matters. I think the ended in not much joy for anybody, having a separate combination of Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Head of the Civil Service. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 3
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB
Q10 Chair: But, Sir Douglas, you were not got to be run differently, they are being run differently, unsatisfied with your role. and do you think that has been part of the decision to Sir Douglas Wass: I was not because it was a very split the role? minor activity in the totality of my duties, and I fitted Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I do not perceive that it in quite easily. I would like to make one comment, myself, but I have been out for a long time and I if I may, about Lord Butler’s contribution and the have not got the first-hand experience. I do share Lord advantage he sees in having the post unified in the Butler’s view about some of the disadvantages of the Cabinet Office of Head of the Civil Service and separation, and, as indeed as some of the commenters Cabinet Secretary. I think the function that the Head reflected, there is even some risk of conflict with the of the Civil Service can fulfil—it is more difficult to two roles in separate places. I do not know who is fulfil it in the role of Cabinet Secretary than in any going to be Head of the Civil Service under the new other role—is that of occasionally giving some sort of dispensation; your guess is as good as mine, or leadership to the Civil Service, some sort of feeling probably better. However, in an extreme case, suppose and indication that the concerns they have are it was the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of recognised and understood at the top, and an Defence and some problem arose in the field of explanation as to what, if anything, can or should be defence, in many senses like the recent problem or the done about them. My own feeling is that the Cabinet problem with Dr David Kelly some years ago. The Secretary is so close to the Prime Minister that he Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Defence would finds it more difficult to say anything that might raise certainly have had an involvement in his Department, the hackles of a Prime Minister than any other civil which he might well have wanted to consult the Head servant. of the Civil Service about. He could not consult I had one specific occasion when I felt the need to himself if he were himself the Head of the Civil say something publically about what I regarded as the Service. I think there is a risk of conflict there, and declining morale of the Civil Service when I was joint that is one of the reasons why it is advantageous to Head of the Civil Service. It was in late 1982, not have as the Head of the Civil Service the Cabinet long before I retired, when there had been a severe Secretary, who, though he has a very important role, attack on the pay structure in the Civil Service. The is not actually in charge of a major Department. Civil Service Department had been abolished. I think among most civil servants at the time there was a Q12 Kelvin Hopkins: I remember 1982 and 1983 general feeling that they were not loved; they very well. I wonder if political events at that time— probably were not loved, and were quite right not to the Falklands War, the dramatic and big victory of be loved. I felt that there was something that I as one Margaret Thatcher in 1983—all made her feel bolder of the two Heads of the Civil Service ought to say when she combined the two roles of Head of the Civil publically, both to answer their concerns where I Service and Cabinet Secretary. It was a dramatic could answer them, and indeed to sympathise with political time; I wonder if that had a bearing on the them where I could not answer them. I gave a public lecture, quite a long one, at the Royal Institute of merging of those two posts. Public Administration on the role of public service in Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I do not think so Mr modern society. Hopkins, because the main change occurred in Chair: I must cut you off there Sir Douglas. November 1981, when the Civil Service Department Sir Douglas Wass: I am sorry. I will not go on any was abolished, the duties of the Civil Service more, but just say it was well received and I think it Department were divided between the Treasury and was the right thing to do. I do not think it could have the Cabinet Office and Sir Douglas and I became joint been done by the Secretary of the Cabinet. Heads. Whether any excess of confidence—quite a Chair: Thank you very much. Lord Armstrong, you difficult thing to think of with Lady Thatcher—as a had a comment. result of the Falklands War and the 1983 election Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I think that, just as Sir helped, I do not know. Her decision to make the Douglas was able to stand publically about Civil Cabinet Secretary the sole Head of the Civil Service Service matters in his lecture, when I was doing it I actually came before that election, at the time of Sir felt the need to restate the duties and responsibilities Douglas’s retirement. So I do not see that connection of civil servants in relation to Ministers. I issued a as particularly important. memorandum of guidance to the Civil Service on the subject, which I showed to the Prime Minister, but I Q13 Kelvin Hopkins: Was the combined post did not ask her to approve or clear it. She supported designed to be a permanent structure? Was it intended me in doing it. I think the fact that it came from the to be permanent? Cabinet Secretary was advantageous; it gave that Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I do not know that document a little bit of additional authority. anything in this area is permanent, because circumstances and personalities change. It is quite Q11 Chair: In that little exchange between you and easy to overlook the importance of personalities at the then Margaret Thatcher, one is immediately reminded top, personalities of the Prime Minister and the of a sense of mutual respect and almost deference Cabinet Secretary, and their different conceptions of between the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister their roles and so on. But yes, I think it was thought that might have existed then. Has the informality of in 1981 or 1983 to be a permanent change, in the light Government contributed to this sense that things have of the experience of previous decades. Ev 4 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB
Lord Butler of Brockwell: Lord Armstrong may recall Q16 Kelvin Hopkins: One last question: will the this, and he probably knows more about it than I do, current splitting of the role have a significant effect on but when I was appointed as his successor the issue of the morale of the Civil Service? Is it difficult to judge? whether there should be a joint appointment, I believe, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I doubt it. I think the came up again. I am told, indeed Lady Thatcher main factor operating on morale in the 80s was the subsequently told me, that she had decided that she then Government’s decision to reduce the size of the did not want what she described as “a Pinky and Perky Civil Service by 20% over four years. I think that was arrangement”. I say this with some diffidence because seen as a vote of no confidence in the Civil Service, I would not like to suggest that Sir Douglas Wass and and did worry people a lot. Lord Armstrong were Pinky and Perky, but I remember her saying that. I think she felt that it was Q17 Lindsay Roy: Good morning gentlemen. It has better to have a single person combining the two roles. been suggested that dividing the role represents a She had come to that conclusion by that point. downgrading of the role of the Head of the Civil Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Sir Douglas and I will Service. Do you agree with that view? sort out afterwards which of us was Pinky, and which Lord Butler of Brockwell: I doubt whether that is the of us was Perky. intention. It may be the result, because the Cabinet Secretary does these days have a naturally high profile Q14 Kelvin Hopkins: They were equally esteemed I both inside and outside Whitehall. If it is combined am sure. Up to the present time, do you believe the with a Head of another Department, I think that will current split between the two roles is due to amount to something of a downgrading, in my view. personalities—in a sense you have touched on this— Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Even though the Head and the individuals taking up the posts? Is it simply of the Civil Service is going to be on the same pay that Jeremy Heywood wants to do a different job and level as the Secretary of the Cabinet, and in that sense does not wish to be Head of the Civil Service? be equal, I think that in fact the Secretary of the Lord Butler of Brockwell: I must say that I am Cabinet will be first among equals. He will be primus reporting what perhaps I should not, which is rumour inter pares. The sheer proximity to the Prime Minister rather than evidence. I think it is the fact that Jeremy will in a sense ensure that. I suspect that people will Heywood’s great strengths and interest are in being a look to the Cabinet Secretary, as they have done really policy adviser. I imagine that the Prime Minister has in the last 20 years, as the top civil servant. decided jointly with Mr Heywood that that is what he wants him to concentrate on. Q18 Chair: One of the findings of the House of Lords Committee was that, before this change, they Q15 Kelvin Hopkins: Just going back to what Sir noted “with concern” evidence they had received Douglas was saying earlier about the low morale of suggesting that “the authority of the Cabinet Secretary the Civil Service in the early 80s, did the combination has diminished”. Is that view shared by our witnesses? of the two jobs then help to raise the morale of the Lord Butler of Brockwell: No, I do not think so. It Civil Service? Did they feel they were having a bigger seems to me that Sir Gus O'Donnell has carried very crack of the whip because they were now governed considerable authority in Whitehall, and indeed by the Cabinet Secretary and their status had been outside it. I think he has taken some brave stands on raised in a sense? Was that significant? some matters where he has had to be critical of Sir Douglas Wass: I do not think it had any effect on politicians. I note that he is described as the Prime morale. I think it was a matter of some indifference to Minister’s principal policy adviser, and I think a great most of the Civil Service. They do not have the deal gets referred to him. I do not know how it has perception of the role as Head of the Civil Service come about, but I do notice that he is now described and his relationship with the Prime Minister that Lord as the Head of the Civil Service; the Foreign Office Butler has just described. I think the ordinary rank and would never have stood for that in Lord Armstrong’s, file see it in much more simplistic terms: there are just Sir Douglas Wass’s and my day. However it has come two Heads now where there was one before. I think about. I think Sir Gus O'Donnell has got a very high that the problems of morale in the early 80s were quite profile. serious and could not have been remedied simply by this appointment. As I say, I think that, if anything, the Q19 Chair: Is that the same for our other witnesses? slight distancing of myself from the Prime Minister, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: There may have been compared with the Cabinet Secretary who was in some decline when Mr Blair was Prime Minister, and constant touch, gave me a status and an ability to say perhaps when Mr Brown was Prime Minister, things publically that I think would have been more because, as we read in the autobiographies of these difficult for someone who was a close adviser. I people, they did tend to try to ease the Cabinet remember, when I gave this lecture I referred to Secretary out of the more intimate discussions. If I earlier, I did send a copy in draft to Number 10— talk about “sofa government”, you will understand Robin Butler was the Private Secretary at the time— that it is a shorthand for that state of affairs. I think and I said, “I hope the Prime Minister will not ask me that was perceived. Like Lord Butler, I think that to change any of this”. I got a note back from Sir Gus O'Donnell has gone a long way to recoup that Robin Butler saying the Prime Minister would not damage; particularly, the skill with which he and his dream of changing a word that I say. I, at least, took colleagues managed the coalition negotiations and the the precaution of showing it to her. fact that, with the coalition Government, the Cabinet Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 5
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB
Committee system comes into its own again have Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I believe it does. done a lot to restore the authority of the Cabinet Lord Butler of Brockwell: So do I. Secretary. Q24 Lindsay Roy: As you may be aware, there have Q20 Lindsay Roy: Civil Service World has argued, been recent allegations that the Scottish Permanent and I quote, “In future, the HCS will be both distant Secretary has breached the Civil Service Code. from the heart of power, and at risk of coming across Indeed, in the other place, Lord Sewel asked "Is it as the ‘opposition in residence’…The Civil Service proper for the permanent secretary of the Scottish needs a capacity to stand up to politicians as well as executive to make clear and in public his own to serve them; that capacity will be smaller now.” Do personal views on a matter of controversial policy?" you share that concern? Under the present arrangements, whose responsibility Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I do not really is it to investigate and report on such allegations, and recognise that myself. would that differ under the proposed new Lord Butler of Brockwell: I think it will depend arrangements? entirely on the status, ability, and personality of the Lord Butler of Brockwell: I will have a go at that. I person who is appointed as Head of the Civil Service. took part in a question exchange in the House of Lords If I were on the selection panel, that is what I would about that, and you will understand if I do not express be looking for: somebody who could properly a view about the facts of the particular alleged represent the interests of civil servants to Ministers. infringement. Lindsay Roy: Absolutely. Q21 Chair: But not just the interests of civil Lord Butler of Brockwell: As I understand, I saw it servants; the interests of the country. reported that Sir Gus O’Donnell himself went up to Lord Butler of Brockwell: I accept that. Scotland to try to deal with this matter, so he regarded it as his role when such an allegation of breach of the Q22 Charlie Elphicke: I just wonder whether that is Code is made. I would regard it in the same way. the right way round. The way I interpreted this is: the Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood, is into policy Q25 Lindsay Roy: Would it be the Head of the Civil and then the Head of the Civil Service is into Service in the future— personnel. If you have a herd of cattle you need Lord Butler of Brockwell: I beg your pardon; I think someone to decide the direction—that is Gus or that is unclear. Jeremy Heywood—and then you need a dog to run Lindsay Roy: That is what I am driving at. round them, keep them all in order, keep them moving Lord Butler of Brockwell: Actually no, sorry, that is forward, catch up the strays and get them in. Is that not so unclear. I have read the briefing and I think it then the job of the Head of the Civil Service? Is that is the case; it says the Head of the Civil Service will job to represent the views of civil servants and be responsible for the Civil Service Code. What I Ministers, or is it so that there is an enforcement think is unclear is who will be the Prime Minister’s mechanism across Whitehall to ensure that some adviser on compliance with the Ministerial Code. In Departments do not go rogue and they keep on the nothing that I have seen has that been made clear. agenda? Lord Butler of Brockwell: It is both. Just to take your Q26 Greg Mulholland: Morning gentlemen. Asking analogy, a farmer who has a flock of sheep does not questions around the time commitment involved in the have a separate person to do the rounding-up of them. Head of the Civil Service, I think it does seem slightly I think you can do both, and, as I say, it is a mutually odd to many people that, in applying for the job, supportive role. candidates are asked to prepare a statement how they Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I think this was the would “do the job alongside their existing role”. That same when Lord Butler was Cabinet Secretary, but I is a rather unusual way of recruiting, never mind certainly had a meeting every week with my fellow appointing. Do you have concerns about that? Also, Permanent Secretaries. This meeting served me very given the pace of change currently required in well in both capacities: as Cabinet Secretary and as Whitehall, do you think that the time commitment Head of the Civil Service. We were able to review being envisaged for the post is adequate? what was happening in Government policy and Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: It is a very difficult Government activity and so on, but it also enabled me question to answer; it is as long as a piece of a string. to size up my Permanent Secretary colleagues; it was When I became Head of the Civil Service, I my duty to recommend to the Prime Minister the recognised that I was going to have to change the way appointment of new Permanent Secretaries. The fact in which I was doing the job as Cabinet Secretary. I that I was in touch with Permanent Secretaries and resolved this because I wanted to be able to give time their immediate deputies really strengthened my first to being Head of the Civil Service, including not only hand knowledge of their capacities and strengths, and questions of senior appointments and of compliance indeed weaknesses. with codes, but also pastoral visits, going out to Departments and outstations to meet people and see Q23 Lindsay Roy: Gentleman, can you confirm that what was going on, which I always found an the Civil Service Code on impartiality still applies extremely useful thing. In order to fit that in, other equally to civil servants working within the devolved things had to give. I changed my working structure, administrations? on both sides really, and came to the conclusion that Ev 6 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB it was very much a matter of one’s personal choice, if there is a war or something, that takes 120% of but you needed to give yourself extremely good the time. deputies to cover where you were diluting your own contribution. It still seems to me that that would be Q31 Chair: We now have a National Security the best way of dealing with the problem: we should Adviser. be keeping a single Cabinet Secretary cum Head of Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes, you have that now— the Civil Service, but the incumbent should give then the National Security Adviser would have to take himself, and be given, the support that he needs to be over. There are times when the Cabinet Secretary able to do both jobs effectively. As I say, in my really cannot do anything else and must deal with the experience you have to think about that, but it is particular crisis. doable. I think that is better than dividing the roles. Lord Butler of Brockwell: I agree with that. I was Q32 Chair: I appreciate that, but if you take away looking through the papers because I think I saw the Head of the Civil Service responsibilities, and all somewhere that the role of Head of the Civil Service the security issues—because that is the National is described as two days a week, to be joined with a Security Adviser—what is the Cabinet Secretary Permanent Secretary role. First of all, I think that is doing that is of such importance he cannot carry out rather overstating it. I think that that is pretty difficult these other roles? to combine with being a Permanent Secretary/Head of Lord Butler of Brockwell: We are not there, and so a Department. we do not know, but I think he will find his time is Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: It does not come in two pretty full. days a week. It comes in bits and bobs. It is not a question of, “Oh well, today is Wednesday and I will Q33 Chair: I am sure his time will get filled up, but be Head of the Civil Service today”. You have to what is it being filled up with? Is it much more of the dovetail the two jobs and, when life is hectic on the day-to-day, 24-hour, helter-skelter of modern politics political side of things, you will depend very much on rather than the long-term strategic management and your deputies on the other side. When life is a little guidance of Government? less hectic, you may want to catch up on being Head Lord Butler of Brockwell: If he is wise, and I think of the Civil Service. I do not think it is capable of Jeremy Heywood is wise, he will probably give a being split two days a week on this and three days a good deal of time to the latter and I am sure you week on that, or five days a week on this and two would welcome that. days a week on that. Q34 Kelvin Hopkins: Earlier on, Lord Armstrong Q27 Chair: Lord Armstrong, you did say it was expressed some disdain and dislike for the Blair style about 25%/75%. of sofa government, which I must say I share. There Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Yes, I think over time is also a view that the executive is too powerful in that is about right, but, as I say, on any given day or relation to the legislature in British Government and, any given week, those would not be the proportions. even more so, the Prime Minister’s Office is too powerful in relation to all the rest of Government. Q28 Chair: I do not know what hours you worked With Jeremy Heywood focusing all his efforts as Cabinet Secretary—70 hours a week? 80 hours a working with the Prime Minister, isn’t he going to week? make that Prime Ministerial bunker Government even Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I was usually in by stronger, and make our constitution slightly more nine o’clock, and I usually left about half-past eight unbalanced again? to nine in the evening. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: That is a possible risk, yes. It will depend on Jeremy Heywood’s skill and on Q29 Chair: How many hours a week is that? the wisdom of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: That would be 60 Minister to try and avoid that conclusion. hours; you took work away at the weekend as well, Lord Butler of Brockwell: May I draw attention to so it was quite a lot of work. one point that is not clear in anything that I have read? Lord Butler of Brockwell: And in the evenings. When Jeremy Heywood is appointed Cabinet Secretary, the post of Permanent Secretary in the Q30 Chair: Of course, but we are talking about Prime Minister’s Department is to be abolished. It is relieving the Cabinet Secretary of about 15 or 20 to revert to the head of the Number 10 staff being the hours a week of work. What is he going to do with Principal Private Secretary. What is not clear is, if I all that extra time? can put it this way, which side of the green baize door Lord Butler of Brockwell: It is like all these things. Jeremy Heywood will be. Will he be in Number 10, People asked how long I worked; I said that I worked where he is at the moment, as the Prime Minister’s all the time that I had not arranged to do something man, or will he be where Lord Armstrong and I were, else, and so I did arrange to do some other things. So in the Cabinet Office—the other side of the green you fit it in and, of course, you rely hugely on having baize door? It is not a green baize door anymore but very good deputies, both in the Cabinet Office it was. I would assume and hope that it would be the Secretariat and in the management of the Civil latter, i.e. he would be located in the Cabinet Office Service. I felt that I had very good deputies indeed. reflecting the Cabinet Secretary’s responsibility not Things can happen with the Cabinet Secretary post, just to the Prime Minister but to the Cabinet as a Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 7
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB whole. That certainly has not been made clear in ask him to do it, in the confident knowledge that he anything I have seen yet. will do it well. You take the work home; you work Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: It has been emphasised, late at night; you work on Saturdays and Sundays; you in the briefing that I have seen, that the Cabinet have to show great flexibility whatever job you have Secretary is responsible not just to the Prime Minister in the Civil Service. Being Head of the Civil Service and the Deputy Prime Minister, but to the whole of and the Permanent Secretary is no different from any the Cabinet. I believe that Lord Butler will agree that other. There are heavy posts and there are light posts; for both of us that was a very important part of our that was a heavy post. If you cannot cope, you cannot responsibilities: this sense that you were not just go and do the job. representing the Prime Minister, although the Prime Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: One of the things you Minister is the Chairman of the Cabinet; in a very real need to be able to do is switch instantly from one and important sense, you were responsible to every subject to another. You will be dealing with one member of the Cabinet. And there were times, subject and then suddenly dealing with a different one. particularly with a very powerful Prime Minister, You have to be able to switch your attention when you had to exert that responsibility. absolutely 100% immediately. Then, if the other one comes back, switch back. This is a God-given thing. Q35 Charlie Elphicke: Sir Douglas, you will recall There is no merit in it: you can do it or you can’t. that you were Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, so you had Q37 Charlie Elphicke: You need to be able to substantial responsibilities. What impact did you multitask. Not all men can, as I read in the books. The taking on the headship of the Civil Service, along with last question: Sir Douglas, I think everyone knows Lord Armstrong, have on your work at the Treasury? that, as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, you Sir Douglas Wass: A fairly small impact, I would oversaw the period of the IMF in the 70s and, I have to say. I delegated very strongly, to the lowest presume, the economic difficulties in the early 80s as level that could bear the responsibility, all the duties well. Looking at the current situation, do you think it of negotiating pay, complementing Departments, makes much difference how the Civil Service is fixing staff levels and so forth. I had very good organised, and do you have any wider observations? managers and civil servants below me and I had Sir Douglas Wass: If you are talking about the confidence in their ability to get on with it; they did, organisation of the Civil Service, you are talking and they did a good job. They, of course, came to me about something quite different from the identification when there were problems they could not resolve, or of a man as Head of the Civil Service. I cannot say when there were problems involving other people, and whether the duties of civil servants today are greater I had to sort it out. On the whole, though, I coped or less than they were in my day. They fluctuated even with the load that I had at any time by deliberately in my time. There were periods when there was delegating and allocating my time as I thought best intense activity: for instance, in 1976 when we had a among the various functions. I found that, as a result, substantial financial crisis; two periods in 1978 when I did not get terribly preoccupied with Civil Service there was much less pressure, but there were big matters, though in fact there were quite a lot more issues such as joining the European Monetary System, activities that the Permanent Secretary would have and so forth. The art of discharging your duties is one been and was involved with in those days. For of assessing where the priorities lie and who can instance, the Whitley system was a very strong and handle them best; you either have that touch or you active one, and I was Chairman of the National do not. If you do not have that touch, you cannot Whitley Council. That gave the various trade union really be Permanent Secretary. leaders on the National Whitley Council some sort of Chair: Moving on to the responsibilities and duties right of access to me when they had problems: of the Head of the Civil Service. problems over their membership, problems over pressures on pay and so forth. They would come and Q38 David Heyes: You said earlier that you had each see me, and I found time for them. I knew them all had the opportunity to see the new job description for well, having negotiated pay matters in the Treasury the Head of the Civil Service. I just wondered, is it 15 and 20 years before. On the whole, I did that coherent? Is it comprehensive? Does it capture all the outside office hours at a time of convenience to them key responsibilities and duties for the Head of the and when it did not conflict with my duties in the Civil Service? Lord Butler, you said already that there Treasury. is no mention in there for responsibility for the Ministerial Code. Are there other grounds to criticise Q36 Charlie Elphicke: Pausing there, was there a it? formal reduction in your duties as Permanent Lord Butler of Brockwell: As I say, I think it is Secretary to the Treasury or did you just, frankly, unclear who is going to be responsible for that. It does juggle and get through it? Did you just simply take on say clearly here that the post will be responsible for the workload of being Head of the Civil Service as the Civil Service Code, and I think that that is right. an addition? Other than that, yes, it is pretty comprehensive. I did Sir Douglas Wass: The job of allocating your time, not see anything that I would say, “What about that?” whatever your duties, falls to you and your discretion. There are some issues where the borderline between You have to decide that some things you have not got the Head of the Civil Service and the Cabinet time for; you will get Mr Snodgrass to do it; and you Secretary is unclear. There is quite a lot that it is said Ev 8 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB they do jointly, an example of which is recommending position I would say what it was. We would sort it out top appointments. There is an underlined bit, “Jointly somehow. I do not think there was ever any case with the Cabinet Secretary, the postholder will also: where we had a standoff, so to speak, that simply manage the Permanent Secretary cadre and chair all could not be resolved because one or other of us meetings of Permanent Secretaries; advise on Top 200 would not give way. It is a personal chemistry; it and senior public and other appointments; and advise either works or it does not work. It worked perfectly on all machinery of government matters”. It is a little well with Robert Armstrong and myself; it worked odd for those functions to be put in commission perfectly well with Ian Bancroft and myself. There between two people. could be personalities where there would be a violent clash and unwillingness. Q39 David Heyes: You see the likelihood of conflict. Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes, of course anything Q42 Charlie Elphicke: Sir Douglas and Lord can work, and as Sir Douglas Wass said earlier, if your Armstrong, it is encouraging that both of you got on cooperation with your co-head is as good as his was extraordinarily well. Who chaired the meeting of with Lord Armstrong then not much difficulty may Permanent Secretaries? arise, but clearly you are putting the roles into Sir Douglas Wass: It was very flexible, as I recall it. commission. When there were Civil Service wide issues the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Sir Douglas and I made meeting would be chaired by the head of whichever a good job, I think, of being joint Heads of the Civil Department had the principal role. The weekly Service. I went through an experience in 1968 of meeting of Permanent Secretaries I think we chaired being joint Principal Private Secretary to the alternatively, didn’t we Robert? I forget exactly how Chancellor of the Exchequer and that was not a it worked. comfortable experience. We made it work because Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: It worked when we there was good will on both sides, but it was not a were both there. They happened in the Cabinet Office good arrangement; I think both of us would have and not in the Treasury. There was a very strong sense agreed with that. that the two of us were joint Chairmen at these meetings. Q40 Chair: What happened to the other one? Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: He was taken ill and Q43 Charlie Elphicke: How did that change? died. He had a congenital heart problem and was Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: If I may put it this way, suddenly seized and taken ill, so we do not know. Sir Douglas has talked about his long-time friendship and colleagueship with Ian Bancroft, and I shared that, Q41 David Heyes: Sir Douglas: never a cross word though I was a little younger than both of them. The with Lord Armstrong, is that true? fact is that, among Permanent Secretaries, these Sir Douglas Wass: Sorry? friendships and this sense of collegiality develop, David Heyes: Lord Armstrong says that you and he along with a very strong instinct to make it work, never had a cross word. Was that true in your time, whatever it is. and is it likely that the situation would be different with this new job description and new role? Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: The suggestion was for Q44 Charlie Elphicke: When Sir Douglas retired, agreement that we never had a cross word when we you became both Cabinet Secretary and Head of the were joint. I think we never had a cross word. Civil Service, the whole shooting match, and you Sir Douglas Wass: I do not think we ever had a chaired the meetings of Permanent Secretaries. Did it cross word. change at all? Going from the dual role to a single David Heyes: We do not believe that. person, did that change the dynamic of those meetings Lord Butler of Brockwell: It is fair to say there will at all—improve things, make them worse? always be a certain amount of tension between the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I suppose others may Head of the Civil Service and the Head of the have felt that it changed the dynamic. I do not Treasury over, for example, Civil Service pay. I remember feeling it particularly so myself. remember some quite lively conversations with the Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury in my day about Q45 Chair: It must have been much more that sort of aspect. They can be conducted in an straightforward. amicable way. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I suppose it probably Sir Douglas Wass: If I can comment on that, I did was. The occasion I remember happened the morning have two years when I was Permanent Secretary to after the episode in Yes Minister in which the Cabinet the Treasury and Lord Bancroft was head of the Civil Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service, Sir Service Department and Head of the Civil Service. I Arnold Robinson, had called in Sir Humphrey and do not recall our having any problems. I know I am given him a wigging—a very polite wigging but a suggesting there are no difficulties in life or definite wigging. The next day we all sat round the throughout, but he and I had been colleagues since the table, and they looked across at me and they said, end of the war, since 1946. We grew up together, and “Did you see Yes Minister last night Robert?” I said, we knew each other as friends as well as colleagues. “Yes I did.” Then there was a silence. Then one of If he had a problem, he would call me up on the phone them said, “And which of us are you going to try it and we would discuss it amicably. If I had a different out on first?” The Permanent Secretary to the Ministry Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 9
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB of Defence, Sir Frank Cooper, who was a real old Q52 Chair: Moving on to the whole question of shellback said, “Not on me you don’t.” Civil Service reform, we produced a report last month Lord Butler of Brockwell: If I can go back to called Change in Government: the agenda for something Lord Armstrong said a bit earlier, he said, leadership, the emphasis being that, in successive when he became single Head of the Civil Service, he Civil Service reforms, leadership of reforms seems to had to think out again the way he performed the role have been the most difficult aspect of it: making sure of Cabinet Secretary and make sure that he had time that everybody is focused and engaged on it rather for it. I do think that, if there is a single Head of than distracted by the day-to-day business of the Civil Service, they know that they have got this Government. Who will lead the very considerable responsibility in relation to the Civil Service, and that reforms that the Government is implementing now, may concentrate a single person’s mind more than it which includes not only very dramatic departmental would be concentrated in a joint arrangement. downsizing but decentralisation, the post-bureaucratic age, openness and transparency, localism and the Big Q46 Charlie Elphicke: Lord Butler, if you were a Society? These are very demanding changes in what betting man, who is going to hold the whip hand on the Civil Service does for Government. We found that this joint role? Is it going to be the Cabinet Secretary different Departments are approaching this in very or the Head of the Civil Service? different ways and, indeed, the Minister for the Civil Lord Butler of Brockwell: A very good question. If I Service himself, Francis Maude, said that he almost were a betting man, the Cabinet Secretary. celebrates the fact that Government works in Charlie Elphicke: Access to power. departmental silos and isn’t particularly joined up at the top. How is this divided command going to lead Q47 Chair: So that really does suggest that the role the change that is necessary to make this work? of the Head of the Civil Service is being downgraded. Lord Butler of Brockwell: You said, “Who is going Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I agree with that and I to lead this?” On the basis of the document, three think that, in this new arrangement, for a whole lot of people are going to lead it: the Minister in the Cabinet practical reasons, in a sense, it is going to be the Office, the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office Cabinet Secretary who is the top dog. and the Head of the Civil Service. I think that that does represent a bit of a problem, because it is a divided responsibility. Anything can work if Q48 Chair: Looking at something like the personalities work together, but, as you will have performance of the top 200, particularly the understood, my prejudice is that it works better if Permanent Secretaries, whose view will count the there is a single responsibility both on the Civil most: the Cabinet Secretary, representing the Prime Service side and on the ministerial side. Minister, or the Head of the Civil Service? Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My mind goes back to Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: “I don’t know” is the the early 1980s, when we were pursuing a thing that answer to that. They will both have views on that, and we called the Financial Management Initiative. Then it seems from the papers that they will share it was very much a joint leadership between the responsibility. Permanent Secretary to the Treasury—Douglas Wass and then Peter Middleton—and the Head of the Civil Q49 Chair: They share responsibility for the Service, which was me. We were both pointing and appointments as well. working in the same direction, and talking to each Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I do think that the other regularly about it. Of course, we were supported Cabinet Secretary is in a strong position to know extremely ably by people like Peter Kemp. across Whitehall, and probably a stronger position than any single Permanent Secretary would be. Q53 Chair: If you were able to design the leadership that the Civil Service really needs, where would you Q50 Chair: So, he has the same power but less locate that leadership: as part of another Government responsibility. Department, as what has become the traditional role Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: He has knowledge of Cabinet Secretary, or would you beef up the and influence. Cabinet Office and actually make the senior civil servant in the Government the head of the Cabinet Q51 Chair: And backing. Office, so that they could actually deliver the change Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I don’t know about across the whole of Government? power. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I think this has to be Lord Butler of Brockwell: As Lord Armstrong said— a corporate effort. The leadership has to come from the words he added—“and influence”, because that Permanent Secretaries as a whole, no doubt intimate relationship with the Prime Minister does themselves led, in my own time, by the Cabinet matter. The Prime Minister will say to the Cabinet Secretary and by the Permanent Secretary to the Secretary over a drink in the evening, “Having terrible Treasury. Between us, we had to provide the problems with the Ministry of Such and Such. What leadership for those things, and we kept together to is the matter with the Permanent Secretary there?” do it. That is the moment when the Cabinet Secretary will Lord Butler of Brockwell: Speaking particularly from talk to the Prime Minister in a way that another my experience on the Next Steps reforms, yes, of Permanent Secretary really cannot. course, the cooperation of the Permanent Secretary to Ev 10 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB the Treasury was vital, but really what drove the Next things you want and letting people get on with it, Steps reforms through was Peter Kemp doing the because it is not like the Army. Leadership, I think, is legwork, my giving leadership, but above all, the a quality not very important in the Civil Service. knowledge that Margaret Thatcher was very strongly Lord Butler of Brockwell: If I could just qualify that, behind this. That knowledge around Whitehall had an there are times when there will be a reform amazing effect. We did not have to take much of her programme that the Government wants to get time, but the fact that the Prime Minister was wholly through—a single reform programme, if you like. in support of it I think enabled Peter Kemp and me to get that reform programme through. Q58 Chair: Or several, like we have now. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: She was the big stick Lord Butler of Brockwell: Or several, yes, but if I, and we wielded it. again, take the example that dominated my time, which was the Next Steps programme, that was a Q54 Chair: The Cabinet Office website actually programme that was to apply to all Departments. Then says, “Strengthening the Civil Service—to ensure that I think the situation becomes, in that respect, slightly the Civil Service is organised effectively and has the different. capability in terms of skills, values and leadership to Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I do think that, when I deliver the Government’s objectives”. That is the was in the post, people were looking for a sort of function of the Cabinet Office described on their leadership. It was not the kind of leadership that a website, but if they do not have the Head of the Civil general gives his troops, but it was still a kind of Service in that Department, and the new Permanent moral leadership, if you like. People—Permanent Secretary there says he does not want that role, what Secretaries and others—looked to the Secretary of the is the Cabinet Office doing? What is it for? Cabinet/Head of the Civil Service to provide that Lord Butler of Brockwell: Of course, it also says that leadership. It is very difficult to describe how it was the Permanent Secretary who becomes Head of the done, but I can remember having the feeling that Civil Service, in that Head of the Civil Service role, people were looking to me for that and that I had an will have the support of the Cabinet Office and the obligation to try to meet it. Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office. It is a little unclear what his relationship—or her relationship— will be with the Minister in the Cabinet Office. Q59 Chair: Ministers feel they are dealing with very long, stretchy bits of elastic when they are trying to manage the command chain. Aren’t leadership and the Q55 Chair: It is a rather complicated wiring diagram, isn’t it? engagement by the leadership of people down the command chain, down to the front line in the public Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes. There have been complicated wiring diagrams before. It would not be services, what is lacking in the modern Civil Service? the first time. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I cannot say—I have Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I am quite glad I am been out of it for so long—but I would have thought not having to work in it. there was leadership in Departments.
Q56 Chair: Sir Douglas—any thoughts? Q60 Chair: Variable, I would say—some very good; Sir Douglas Wass: I do have problems with a lot of some very strong. the themes of the discussion, and the whole concept Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Maybe, but I think that of leadership, for instance, is something I find very Sir Gus O’Donnell has given some collective difficult to relate to the Civil Service. The Civil leadership, and we have seen it happening. I have Service is not like the Army, where you have a very never discussed it with him, but I sense that he has well-defined command structure, a strategy and a felt the same sense that I felt, that people were looking battle-plan that you have to devise and then feed down to you for leadership. You were not providing it in a to your troop commanders to ensure that it is carried very organised way, but it was a question of respect out. and people recognising that you were on their side, as it were. Q57 Chair: Is it more like a conglomerate? Sir Douglas Wass: It is much more fragmented. It is Q61 Chair: Lord Butler, do you think that we should much more broken down into, on the whole, fairly revive the idea of a department for the Civil Service, small activities, for the most part, which have to and if it is not to be the Cabinet Office where the Head relate, where necessary, to the other activities. of the Civil Service would be directly answerable to However, the other idea that there is some man at the the Minister for the Civil Service, should there be a top saying, “Tomorrow, we are going to do this, this separate department? and this”—the sort of typical army leadership—does Lord Butler of Brockwell: No, there should not. not exist in the Civil Service and it is not like that. I think the concept of the Civil Service needing leaders Q62 Chair: So, should it be the Cabinet Office? is not a valid concept. You need, obviously, a person Lord Butler of Brockwell: I think it should be in the in command of a Department who has to decide how Cabinet Office, with some responsibilities inevitably it is going to function, how it is going to discharge its being in the Treasury. The experiment of having responsibilities, but you may discharge that best by separate departments for the Cabinet Office between delegating and giving clear ideas of what sort of Fulton and 1981 was not a success. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 11
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB
Q63 Charlie Elphicke: Very briefly, given the money—but here, obviously, it will cost them a great comments you made, Lord Butler, about how the deal of money. How do you think it will go down with Head of the Civil Service would interrelate with the civil servants who are being told they have to do the Cabinet Office Ministers, and your comments, Lord work of two or three people because their jobs are Armstrong, about how it is a complicated wiring disappearing, to discover that they are going to have diagram, if you were a senior civil servant who was fewer Indians but more chiefs at the top? ambitious and this could be the next step up, would Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: They are saying that it you apply for this job? will not cost more money, because they are abolishing Lord Butler of Brockwell: “No” is the answer to that. the post of Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister, What is more, I do not think that is the sort of civil so that it will come out net and that Mr Watmore will servant that will be appointed to it. I would be very be where he is and there will not be a Permanent surprised if it— Secretary to the Prime Minister. There will be a separate Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Q64 Chair: So, it is not a career move. Civil Service. According to the papers, there is not Lord Butler of Brockwell: No, I think it is a duty. I likely to be an increase in costs. would be very surprised if it is not given to a civil servant who is in their final post. Q67 Paul Flynn: Net is not good, because the rest of Chair: Interesting—very interesting. Good question. the Civil Service and various other jobs are being treated to savage cuts, and this is not; this, at least, Q65 Paul Flynn: I thank you for your evidence this goes on paying the same amount, if not increasing it. morning. I feel a sense of weary resignation at all the That is a heavy blow to the morale of civil servants, wheezes introduced by politicians over the years, surely, if the cuts are not being accepted across the which you have had to use your talents to make the board. best of, but there is always this question that today’s Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I find it very difficult reforms will be reversed in the fullness of time and to predict what is going to affect the morale of the that your work will be undone. Today’s localism will Civil Service. be replaced, if we all live long enough, by somebody’s centralism in the future. Q68 Paul Flynn: Alright. If we can have a look at It is interesting to note that, at this precise moment, the Werritty case, there has been a recent discussion when these changes are being made in the Civil about who should have investigated the case involving Service here of splitting one job into two or three, Mr Liam Fox and Adam Werritty. Should it have been in New Zealand, where they have three people doing taken on by Gus O’Donnell? Have you views on that? virtually precisely the functions that are carried out Or should it have been the responsibility of the now—the State Services Commissioner, the Secretary independent reviewer, Sir Philip Mawer, who seemed of the Cabinet, and the Chief Executive of the the obvious person to take it on? Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Of course, I am Prime Minister there is uniting these jobs into one: precisely the reverse of what is happening here. Do commenting from outside, but it seems to me that, you think that these changes are coming about more if there were cause for concern about Mr Werritty’s for fashion and someone trying to make a name for relationship with Dr Fox, the people who were most themselves rather than anything that is going to be a likely to be conscious of that in the first instance were permanent, lasting reform? at the private office in the Ministry of Defence. If they Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I come back to the did not feel they could say something to the Secretary sense of different personalities and different needs in of State about it, then it should be to the Permanent different times. These things do change, because Secretary. If the Permanent Secretary then had people are different, and because of needs being problems, it would be open to her to have gone to the different at this time or that. I certainly felt that, when Cabinet Secretary, the Head of the Civil Service, we established the Cabinet Secretary and the Head of saying, “Look, I’ve got a problem. We’ve got a the Civil Service being together, we had established problem in the Ministry of Defence. How do you a sensible arrangement. I remember that, when this think we deal with it?” and the Head of the Civil happened in 1983, both my predecessors wrote and Service/Cabinet Secretary would have been able to said they were very glad to see it happening and they give advice and, in the last resort, he could have said wished it had happened in their time. I think that we to the Prime Minister, “Look, we’ve got a problem. I had stumbled, if you like, on what was the right think you had better speak to Dr Fox”. That is the way arrangement, but people feel the need to change. If I would have expected it to work under the system as Lord Butler is right, Mr Heywood is less interested in we have it now. I think this is going to be a bit trickier the business of managing the Civil Service, so he under the new system. needs the support. If it were me, I would have got round that problem by finding a very good deputy to Q69 Paul Flynn: We have a Ministerial Code, which help me with that, rather than divide the roles. was rewritten last year, and it says, “It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials to enforce Q66 Paul Flynn: The Prime Minister of New the Code”. This seems pretty clear, but it almost Zealand seems to make the point that this will be a certainly is the role of Sir Philip Mawer to investigate low-cost change—in fact it will probably save allegations of misconduct of this kind. Ev 12 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB
Lord Butler of Brockwell: I think what the Code says, Gus O’Donnell was one in which he strayed into the if I remember it rightly, is that, before referring a political arena. Many commentators believe that the matter to Sir Philip Mawer— conclusions of the investigation were ones that seemed to favour those who were accused. Certainly, Q70 Paul Flynn: Shall I finish the quote? “If there is there would be further investigations into this, but do an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the you think there is a danger here of involving Gus Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet O’Donnell in that and that they would seem to be Secretary, feels that it warrants further investigation, taking a role that is close to what the political he will refer the matter to the independent adviser on masters wanted? Ministers’ interests”. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I think the Cabinet Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes, that is right. We are Secretary has constantly to watch for that, and to not apologists for what the Government did, but I avoid getting into that position, with every effort he think they would defend themselves by saying that the can, because, as I said before, I do think that the process that Sir Gus O’Donnell was involved in was decision and the enforcement, if “enforcement” is the the Prime Minister consulting him, and I think that right word in this case, has to rest with the Minister. the terms of— The Cabinet Secretary may be able to quote precedent, Paul Flynn: This is like Yes Minister. he may be able to offer advice, and he can suggest a Lord Butler of Brockwell: Can I just finish the point, range of possible decisions, but I think the choice of because I think that I can make my point clear? It the decision in the case of the enforcement of the turns on whether there is going to be a long Ministerial Code has to rest with the Prime Minister investigation or a short investigation. In the case of or another Minister on his behalf. Mr Fox, this was resolved relatively quickly. If Sir Lord Butler of Brockwell: If I may just reinforce that, Philip Mawer had been brought in, inevitably it would I think there has been a tendency at times for have been quite a long investigation, but if I take, by Ministers to defend themselves by saying, “This is contrast, something that I was involved in, which was okay because I cleared it with my Permanent allegations against Ministers made by Mohamed Al Secretary. My Permanent Secretary thought it was Fayed whenever it was, there was a lot of, as it were, okay”. I do not think it is right and I do not think it detective work to be done about that. I would have works. I do not think that politicians can or should been very glad to have somebody like Sir Philip be able to defend themselves by hiding behind civil Mawer to do it rather than to have to do it myself. servants. I have certainly never known a case in which Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: In respect of the the media have been convinced by that sort of Ministerial Code, the Cabinet Secretary or the Head defence. of the Civil Service may advise, but the enforcement has to be the Prime Minister. At least in my view, if Q73 Paul Flynn: You mention the case in your time you are dealing with Ministers, civil servants cannot of Al Fayed, and the accusations then and the enforce; it has to be the Prime Minister or some other consequences then. There have been many attempts to politician—the Chief Whip or somebody—on his reform the system of lobbying since then, all of which behalf. The civil servant should not be doing it and have failed; we still have demands for a reform of the executing it. lobbying system. Are there any lessons that you think might be learned from the Adam Werritty affair that Q71 Paul Flynn: Lord Armstrong, you gave would be useful in initiating reforms in the future? evidence to the Nolan Committee in 1995 arguing that Lord Butler of Brockwell: Lobbyists perform a the Cabinet Secretary should not be responsible for necessary function. There is no reason at all why investigating breaches of Questions of Procedure for people should not be able to make their Ministers, which is now the Ministerial Code. Isn’t representations to Ministers, so to stop that, I think, that what has happened in this case, and doesn’t it would damage Government. The key to it has got to contradict the views you expressed then in 1995? be transparency: that people can see what has Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I am ashamed to say happened and there is nothing, as it were, behind that I had forgotten that I gave evidence to the closed doors—no personal benefits received. The Committee. I still think now that it is open to the utmost transparency, I think, is the important thing, Prime Minister to consult the Cabinet Secretary, and not to stop the activity altogether. the Cabinet Secretary to say, “This is the problem, this Paul Flynn: Have the other gentlemen got any view is what you’ve got to think about and this is the on that? I am very grateful to you. decision you’ve got to make”. The decision about the enforcement of the Ministerial Code must be a Q74 Kelvin Hopkins: In the past we have had a ministerial decision; I do not think it can be a Civil history of very strong Cabinet Ministers in various Service decision. Governments. I think you have commented in the past that it is not quite the same now. In the past, a wilful Q72 Paul Flynn: David Walker has written that “The Minister might have pressed a policy which was job of policing the Ministerial Code is underpinned slightly at odds with the general direction of the by a theory: that civil servants are permanent Government or the Prime Minister’s view, and what custodians of the public interest with a status separate happened then was the private office and then the and, to some extent, immune from politics”. It could Permanent Secretary would go to the Cabinet be argued in this case that the role played in this by Secretary and say, “I think the Minister is pushing in Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 13
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB the wrong direction here. Is it not appropriate to have Prime Minister, this is a matter for Sir Philip Mawer a word with the Prime Minister?” With the new and not for me, and I am advising you there is a prima arrangements, the Permanent Secretary will not report facie case of a breach of the Ministerial Code. This direct to the Cabinet Secretary. They will report to must be investigated by the proper authority”? If he is the Head of the Civil Service, and there might be a criticising the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of discontinuity there, in a sense. Would that be a Defence, isn’t he, by implication, also criticising problem? himself? Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I suppose he will have Lord Butler of Brockwell: You could make an to decide which one he goes to, or whether he goes to argument that his advice to the Prime Minister should both. I think this is where the possibility of conflict, have been confidential. or things falling between two stools, does arise in the Chair: That is a very interesting point. Thank you divided system we have, and will only be prevented for that. by the Secretary of the Cabinet and the Head of the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: You said there was no Civil Service being in very close understanding with provision for this sort of situation in the Code. I think each other. there can be a danger of over-codifying, so that, when Lord Butler of Brockwell: Lord Armstrong quoted a you come to a situation, you ask yourself, “What does very telling example earlier. If it is the Secretary of the Code say about this?” You do not ask yourself, State of the person who is appointed Head of the Civil “What should I be doing?” It may be that this is a Service where the difficulty arises, then that person— matter where it is better left to the conscience and the the Permanent Secretary and the Head of the Civil judgment of the Permanent Secretary concerned, Service—is going to be in very great difficulty, rather than whether it corresponds to the letter of the because there is a loyalty to his or her own Minister Code. but also a duty to the Prime Minister. That is a nasty dilemma to be in. Q77 Chair: Very British. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: What he is going to do Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: None the worse for is go and talk to the Cabinet Secretary. that.
Q75 Chair: Do you think that the Civil Service Code Q78 Charlie Elphicke: Following the whole has any bearing on what happened in the Werritty discussion about whether the Cabinet Secretary should case? Because the Civil Service Code is full of, as carry out this investigation or whether it should be Sir you would expect, integrity, honesty, objectivity and Philip Mawer, the whole business with Dr Fox and impartiality—the obligation to look after the money, previous issues leading up to resignations, is it more keep accurate records, and uphold the law and good attractive that these things are handled quickly and administration—but you must “act in a way which swiftly, without delay, or that we go back to the old deserves and retains the confidence of Ministers”. style of ministerial resignation, where they twist in the There is nothing in here about shopping a Minister to wind for weeks and are completely ruined, and then the Cabinet Secretary. Shouldn’t there be something finally go after a long period of time? in the Civil Service Code that says, “If you warn the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: That is a terribly Minister about something and he does not respond, difficult one. When the thing starts, it is a very natural you have to escalate”? instinct on the Prime Minister’s part to give the Lord Butler of Brockwell: As I recall Sir Gus Minister concerned the benefit of the doubt. He should O’Donnell’s advice to the Prime Minister, it was that not withdraw his support or his confidence quickly. he thought that further action should have been taken That is a matter of loyalty among colleagues, perhaps within the Ministry of Defence; in other words, that it even of personal friendship. To throw a colleague to should have been escalated. Whether that needs a the wolves the first crack out of the bag, as it were, specific provision in the Civil Service Code, I am not would not be a good thing to do. On the other hand, sure. I think that you could say, if the Permanent of course, you may find yourself defending somebody Secretary felt that those responsibilities in the Civil or something which ultimately becomes indefensible. Service Code were not being fulfilled, were not being I do not know what the answer to that is, but I do not observed, that the Permanent Secretary had a duty to think that a Prime Minister can move too fast in this do something about it. You could say that the Civil matter. As, on the whole, Mr Cameron did in this case, Service Code itself, in its present form, requires that he has got to have the ground very sure under his further action should have been taken. feet before he, in effect, tells a colleague that he’s got to go. Q76 Chair: He made a recommendation about that Lord Butler of Brockwell: A Sir Humphrey-ish because this, effectively, went on for more than a year answer: I think it should be dealt with as quickly as before the newspapers picked it up, and that was when is consistent with justice. One can think of examples; it was referred to the Cabinet Secretary. I would I would quote the second resignation of Peter suggest—we will ask him—that he clearly feels there Mandelson in the last administration, where I take the was a difficulty there, but shouldn’t that also have view that, had the facts been known, the resignation applied to him in respect of escalating? Rather than was not necessary. him doing a report of considerable prominence that was seen to be decisive, shouldn’t it have been his Q79 Chair: Can I finally move on very briefly to a obligation to say to the Prime Minister, “Actually, different topic, which is the Cabinet Manual? Two of Ev 14 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
1 November 2011 Rt Hon Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO, Rt Hon Lord Armstrong of Ilminster GCB CVO and Sir Douglas Wass GCB our witnesses this morning contributed to our inquiry important memorandum about how Government on that. We are quite pleased with the Government’s operates, which should not necessarily be under the response. We think we have won the battle that this control of Ministers? is not a great constitutional innovation; it is, I think, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: You show it to described as ‘a document by the executive, for the Ministers and that gives them a chance to say, “Oi.” I executive’. However, there is one difference of think what you say is perfectly reasonable. I do not opinion between us and the Government. We think it would be right for the thing to go out without recommended that the Cabinet Manual, as a guide to having been seen by a Minister, but you will show it Government practice, should be left to officials to to Ministers and I should have thought that, in 999 update and to review at regular intervals, as cases out of a thousand, the Minister would say, ‘Fine, chroniclers and record-keepers, subject to carry on’. consultation. It should not be for the Cabinet to Lord Butler of Brockwell: I am afraid I am more on approve. The Government has not accepted that, on the Government’s side than that, actually. Civil the basis that civil servants are accountable to servants are accountable to Ministers, and it is not for Ministers and, therefore, Ministers must sign off the civil servants to put out pieces of paper, even about Cabinet Manual. Doesn’t that make it more of a the way that they themselves should behave, without political document than it should be? knowing that they have an endorsement. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: I do not quite see the dichotomy, really. If you are keeping this thing up-to- Q82 Chair: The Ministerial Code is owned by the date with constant revision, obviously the Ministers Prime Minister but drafted by civil servants, and that cannot do that, or will not do that, because they are is fair enough, but in terms of the Cabinet Manual, the too busy with other things. There will be a system Government’s response says, “It is like the Ministerial whereby the Cabinet Office will update it and correct Code: it should be owned by the Prime Minister but it. But it is a volume of guidance to Ministers as well drafted by civil servants”. Is that the right relationship as to civil servants and other people. for this document? Lord Butler of Brockwell: Yes, I think it is. No, I Q80 Chair: It is not a white paper; it is not a policy agree with it. document. Why do Ministers need to be involved? Chair: Lord Armstrong? Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Isn’t this going to be Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: No, I am content with submitted to Parliament every year? that. Chair: It is published periodically. Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: It is difficult. I think, Q83 Chair: Thank you very much indeed for your if I were Cabinet Secretary, I would like the Prime help this morning. It has been absolutely fascinating, Minister or other Ministers to know what the changes full of history and anecdotes, as well as relevant are and to be content with them. advice. Thank you very much indeed. Lord Butler of Brockwell: Ah dear, the sins of old Q81 Chair: Isn’t it rather like your memorandum to men. the Civil Service? You showed it to the Prime Minister Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: We have enjoyed being but you did not ask her to approve it. Isn’t this a very with you. Thank you very much. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 15
Tuesday 8 November 2011
Members present: Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair)
Alun Cairns David Heyes Paul Flynn Kelvin Hopkins Robert Halfon Greg Mulholland ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB, and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO, gave evidence.
Q84 Chair: Welcome to this second evidence session Lord Croham, with whom I remember talking about on the role of the Head of the Civil Service. Could I all this, bitterly found that from experience. ask each of our witnesses to identify yourselves for The final point is that I find the lines of command the record, please? difficult to follow because within the Cabinet Office Lord Wilson of Dinton: I am Richard Wilson. I was you will have the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Secretary from the beginning of 1998 to 2002. Francis Maude, and Ian Watmore, as it were, working Lord Turnbull: Andrew Turnbull. I succeeded side-by-side. I may get this wrong, but I think it is Richard in the summer of 2002 and left the Civil right, that Ian Watmore— Service in 2005, having, like Richard, held both the roles we are discussing. Q86 Chair: We are all a bit in the dark at the moment. Q85 Chair: I will start by picking up on a comment Lord Wilson of Dinton: I have to say, we are all of Lord Butler made in his evidence to us last week, that us a bit in the dark. But you will find Ian Watmore history is not on the side of those who want to split working to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the role of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil whereas the Head of the Civil Service will work to Service. In your remarks, perhaps you could draw the Prime Minister. But what happens if the people in attention to where you think circumstances are the centre line up in one way and the Head of the Civil different from your periods as Cabinet Secretary, but Service, working part time in a Department, does not what you think may still apply. Who would like to agree? What weight will the Head of the Civil Service go first? have in that situation? Coming back to the question of how things differ, the point was rightly made to you Lord Wilson of Dinton: Shall I have a shot? I think last time that personalities and circumstances differ. It it may be from time to time that every generation has may well be that the combined post of Cabinet to reinvent history and learn from its own mistakes. I Secretary and Head of the Civil Service is becoming fear that is what is happening here, because in a way extremely heavy. I think it would be better to try to this seems to me like a brave step into the past. I can keep the two posts combined and to provide greater understand why they have to come to this arrangement support, and not try to do everything oneself, rather as a way of structuring things, but I think it has got than split the jobs. some real problems in it. One of the problems is that whoever becomes Head of the Civil Service will find Q87 Chair: Lord Turnbull, you have been outspoken it very difficult if they are running a Government on this subject before. Have you changed your view? Department as Permanent Secretary to find enough Lord Turnbull: No, not at all. What is different has time to give to the job. You heard about that last week. already been dealt with. The main difference from When I was at the Home Office I would not 2000 has been the growth of the threat to national conceivably have had enough time to be Head of the security and fighting two wars at any one time. That Civil Service. If it is a smaller Department they will has been addressed by something that I started and not carry the weight because it would be perceived as which has been carried forward by the creation of the someone lower down the hierarchy. Secondly, I think National Security Adviser. I think that makes a big that the Cabinet Secretary will always have the difference to the workload. advantage of being near the Prime Minister, compared The other thing that is claimed is that being with someone in a Department. Thirdly, one of the handmaiden or marriage guidance counsellor to the lessons of history that my generation learnt is that Coalition creates more work. But as Richard said, policy and execution are not easily separated. Take the there are other ways of dealing with it. So let me present immigration incident; is it a matter for the summarise my overall impressions, and then some Head of the Civil Service because it involves issues that I hope we can explore in the course of the suspension of senior officials, management and so on, questioning. I think it is a very messy solution, and I or is it for the Cabinet Secretary, because clearly there think it lacks a clear rationale. There is a rationale, seem to be quite important policy issues involved? but I am not convinced by it. Normally if you are The first person around to Number 10 when the crisis making a change of this kind you try to do two things. breaks will be the Cabinet Secretary, simply because You try to use your people to the best effect; you try of physical location, and the Head of the Civil Service to get the round pegs in the round holes and the square will always tend to be lagging. If you look at history, pegs in the square holes. You also need to establish Ev 16 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO clear lines of authority and accountability. I think this with direct access to the Prime Minister, operating as scheme fails on both those accounts. I think there a proper chief executive of the Government. were alternatives, which maybe we can explore, and I Lord Wilson of Dinton: But the Cabinet Secretary certainly think there was a better alternative. post is an essential post from the point of view of the I do not know whether you are taking evidence from Cabinet collectively. I would make this point, because Gus O’Donnell or Jeremy Heywood, but my advice you said it is chief adviser to the Prime Minister: I do is: do not shoot the messenger. I do not believe this think it is important that Jeremy Heywood moving to scheme is the first choice of either of them. I do not the Cabinet Office is there to support the Government know, but that is my hunch. So it looks, as I would collectively, not just the Prime Minister, important describe, ad hoc, ad hominem and ad temporal. There though that relationship is. was a lot of negotiation and compromise and demands and vetoes, and this is what has emerged. My guess Q91 Chair: Do you think that is a mistake the Prime is it will probably be temporary. But I hope at some Minister is making? stage we will find time to say, if it is going to happen, Lord Wilson of Dinton: The post has not come into what needs to be done to make this thing work? My operation yet; we have not seen how Jeremy Heywood former colleagues are able, clever and committed is going to do the job. I am just hoping that Jeremy people, they can make all sorts of things work, but Heywood will do the job in a way that supports the certain things need to be done to give it a better Government collectively. But I think the role of policy chance than it faces at present. making, which Jeremy Heywood is extremely good at—he is an outstanding Civil Servant and the Civil Q88 Chair: Can I press you both on one aspect? In Service is very lucky to have got him—is one that the private sector—in business and in large must be integrated with management and execution of corporations—you would not see so much the service. You cannot just deal with policy without concentrated on one person. You would see the role looking at the way the service is going to lead it. You of chairman or chief executive or chief operating yourselves as a Committee have stressed the officer split two or three different ways. Why is that importance of decentralisation, of the post- inappropriate for the Civil Service? bureaucratic age or Big Society. That is a huge job if Lord Turnbull: I think I disagree with you there, Mr it is really the serious intent. I do not think it can be Chairman. I think the CEO is ultimately responsible separated out from the job of the Cabinet Secretary in for delivering whatever it is that company delivers or terms of advising the Prime Minister and supporting sells, whether it is food, pharmaceuticals or whatever. Committees that are going to be implementing it and They spend a lot of time developing and improving taking decisions that have a big influence on the capability of that organisation, developing the implementing it. leadership cadre, and maintaining the reputation and Lord Turnbull: Can I put my gloss on it? The first the brand. I think the CEO would say, “I do not want point was the one I made before about the CEO this split, I do not want to find that whoever is my keeping all these things together. The second is to managing director in China has been chosen for me.” reemphasise a word Robin Butler used last week, I will give you a football analogy. Why is Manchester which is “leverage”. United a great club? It is because Alex Ferguson Chair: That is good. chooses his players, who is in his squad, and then he Lord Turnbull: Very often you are leading the Civil chooses who plays in the match. Why is Chelsea in Service not only in the sense of representing its decline? It is because the chairman chooses the problems to the Government, which you clearly have players, and the manager is left to pick up the pieces to do; but in order to get it to change and become of whoever the chairman has bought. You have to better you have to persuade it to do things it does not keep the development of your people— really want to do. You have more authority to do that if you are close to the Prime Minister. So I think if Q89 Robert Halfon: A point of order, Mr Chairman. you cut the Head of the Civil Service adrift you lose I am a Chelsea supporter. Could I say that Chelsea is some of the effect of that leverage. The third thing is: not in decline? It is a very subjective view. something that started in Richard’s time and carried Chair: It is not a point of order for the Chair. on in mine was to try and emphasise that the Civil Lord Turnbull: The serious point is I do not think you Service has a range of skills. Historically it is thought can easily separate out developing the capability, the of as a policy organisation, but to be good at its job it improvement and the quality of people coming has got to be good at finance, managing people, through your pipeline from the day-to-day operations. handling IT, procurement and in a whole host of other ways. I think this move is a step backwards by, in a Q90 Chair: I accept that, but the question is whether sense, taking policy and elevating that so that the he should be Cabinet Secretary as well, because the senior person in this whole system is the Head of Cabinet Secretary is very much the right-hand man or Policy, and then someone else deals with this other woman of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. The stuff. question we are asking is not whether the Head of the Lord Wilson of Dinton: Could I make a postscript to Civil Service should be an add-on to another that? This debate has deep roots in history. It was one Department, but whether the Cabinet Secretary role that was debated in the Fulton Report, which was should be combined with the Head of the Civil unhappy about the way the Civil Service focused on Service. It might be appropriate to have the Head of policy, which it kept in the Administrative Class, not the Civil Service located in a wholly different position execution, which was delegated to the lower grades. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 17
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
One of the things that worried them about having a Q94 Paul Flynn: But Mrs Thatcher said with some separate Head of the Civil Service was that the person wisdom, I would have thought, that she did not want who held that job would not have sufficient status. I a Pinky and Perky. have checked; if you look at paragraph 258, they Lord Wilson of Dinton: I read that, yes. proposed that the Head of the Civil Service, who they wanted to be separate, should have a much bigger Q95 Paul Flynn: This Government, the Tory-Lib salary than any other Permanent Secretary, and that Dem junta do want a Pinky and Perky, because that is the Cabinet Secretary should be down with other a fair reflection of what the junta is. Someone referred Permanent Secretaries in salary. So this question of to it as a marriage. I think it is a great, screaming separating it off was one that they were debating quite marriage on the brink of divorce most of the time. But strongly even then. do you think Pinky and Perky is a fair description of Lord Turnbull: The history is quite an unhappy one. what the junta is handing out? Those who took the job, I would say the late Ian Lord Wilson of Dinton: I think you are tempting me Bancroft in particular, felt they were typecast as the into— shop steward of the mandarinate. In other words they Paul Flynn: Well be tempted. were representing this class of people rather than Lord Wilson of Dinton: —political territory that I am working with Ministers to get this class of people to not going to go into. The point I would want to make change, develop and improve. In my last conversation is that the Civil Service will look and see that there is with him, the late Douglas Allen said, “Well, I have going to be a powerful Cabinet Secretary who already had this fine career, and it all rather ended with a has a strong relationship with the Prime Minister, and whimper because I took this separate job and I wish I that the job of the Head of the Civil Service will be hadn’t; I wish I had just gone.” given to someone outside the centre, presumably. If it goes back to the Treasury it really would be a step Q92 Paul Flynn: Lord Wilson, you describe it as a right into the past, but if it goes to another Department brave step into the past. Is this “Sir Humphrey talk” it is going to be someone outside that strong, central for a foolhardy stumble into yesterday’s mistakes? circle. I think the message will be that the Lord Wilson of Dinton: I think it is a case where management and role of the service is being given less every generation perhaps from time to time has to weight in the inner circle. Whether Pinky and Perky talk to each other is beyond my competence. relearn from experience. There is no ideal answer to Lord Turnbull: this problem. This is one of those cases where you You refer to Pinky and Perky. In your session last week I do not think you paid enough just have some solutions that, on experience, you attention to the fact there are two changes being made think work better than others. The history of this job here. One is to divide the Head of the Civil Service in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s does teach you from the Cabinet Secretary. The second is to divide that separating off the Head of the Civil Service, the Head of the Civil Service again into the bit that is particularly if you locate it outside, is going to be Ian Watmore Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet extremely hard to work. Office, and then this other role. Can I just add one point to that? There was some talk last week about leadership. I am perhaps one of the Q96 Chair: I am actually far more concerned about few, or I may be the only, former Head of the Civil that. Service who actually spent the bulk of their career in Lord Turnbull: That is the difficulty. Apart from the a Government Department rather than in the centre of Head of the Civil Service having a day job to do; the Government. We are not immune to what happens at Watmore job is connected to the second hardwired these august levels in Departments. We watch what levers of power. There are the levers through the happens. We used to watch what happened in the Prime Minister, and then there are all those hard issues 1970s, our antennae were out, and when we watched in the Civil Service: workforce planning, recruitment, the Head of the Civil Service going through a chapter reward, industrial relations, compensation, pensions, of accidents of things that went wrong, which I do not etc. That is the heart of the Francis Maude agenda, so want to rehearse again. The message we got for the by the time you have hollowed that out, what then is whole Civil Service was that we were not valued. One left? So you could then say, as the Chairman was of the questions I would ask in any re-organisation is: hinting, that you agree with the split, but if you were what message does it give to people down the line in going to split it you would not split it that way. I do Government Departments? not agree with either of them, but I certainly do not agree with the second split. Q93 Paul Flynn: The message it gives is that you double the number of people at the top and halve the Q97 Chair: Do we think Ian Watmore has applied number of people at the bottom; that you need two for the job? people to do the top job that one person did, and at Lord Turnbull: I am pretty sure that he has not. If the bottom level, the plebeian level, you are halving they thought he was the right person for the job they the number of jobs. You are expecting one person to could simply have created a Civil Service Department do the job of two. within the Cabinet Office. I think he is still working, Lord Wilson of Dinton: You certainly want somebody physically located in the Treasury, so he is very near at the top of the service with the ear of the Prime Danny Alexander as well. That is where the real Minister who can make sure that the views of the Civil crunch issues are going to be decided, and he has got Service are being properly represented. staff working for him. This other person that may be Ev 18 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO working down at St James’ tube station or prerogative, but they are there also to say, “Hold on, something—what staff have they got? You need to we ought to have due process and we ought to have a look at the job specification. proper discussion of this on the basis of the facts, Chair: Can we come back to the specification a bit options and costs before you finally decide which way later because we are jumping ahead? One or two it goes.” It should be a collective discussion, not in people want to come in. the hands of a small group of people. The Head of the Civil Service has a voice in that about Q98 Alun Cairns: I want to come back, Lord whether a policy can be actually implemented; it is Turnbull, to what you said at the very beginning, that quite tempting sometimes to decide a policy without it was your hunch that this was not the preferred considering whether the machine is going to be able model at the outset. What do you think should be the to follow behind it. To the extent that that voice is preferred model from the outset? And secondly, what removed from the councils at the centre, it is going to is the motivation behind this model? reduce the checks and balances. Lord Turnbull: I am not in this sector, but my preferred model. Look at Jeremy Heywood’s career; Q100 Kelvin Hopkins: I am a great admirer of the it is a very, very distinguished career, working in the Sir Humphrey model, and I think we are moving away Treasury at the very heart of Government but with from that. not a day spent in another Government Department. Lord Wilson of Dinton: Yes, Minister. Richard worked there a long time. I had four years at the Department of the Environment, but Jeremy had Q101 Robert Halfon: Just to go back, dare I say it, four years at the epicentre of the current financial to your football analogy I do not necessarily agree crisis working in the city. That says to me that this is with what you say. Although of course Alex Ferguson the person who has almost been perfectly trained to is incredibly successful and clearly is a genius in be the next Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. But terms of management, because he has so much control they have decided they do not want to do that. That is over the club, Manchester United will be in serious my personal preference and is what I would have done trouble when he goes because everything is as my choice number one. centralised in that one individual. It will be very hard Choice number two would have been to keep the thing to get somebody like that, so I do not think your together, but then create the support mechanisms to analogy quite works. The way you come over with all enable this very heavy job to be done. One of them your knowledge and expertise is that you are in would be to use Ian Watmore as a kind of COO, and essence resisting change, and this would be exactly the other to rely on the Heads of the Cabinet the Sir Humphrey response to what the Government Secretariats to do a lot of the policy problem solving. is proposing. It may have weaknesses, but you and Richard and I had some extremely good people your predecessors come over as one would expect the working for us. Indeed Richard did that job at one former grandees like yourself to respond. Can you stage when there was a big row about university fees answer that? or foundation hospitals or free schools or whatever. A Lord Wilson of Dinton: We represent the youthful Cabinet Secretary cannot try and solve it himself, he face of change. It is for you obviously to make your gives it to the Head of the Domestic Secretariat, and own judgments. All we can do is offer our best view you build those mechanisms up rather than trying to in the light of our experience. In my career pretty do everything yourself. I think structurally, if you are much everything has been tried, other than having the going to go down this line, that is my second Head of the Civil Service in a Government preference. Department outside the centre, if you call the CSD The third is if you are going to split it, do not split it a part of the centre, which is a bit doubtful. The problem second time. I think that is my ranking of these things. has been that Civil Service management historically has tended to be, it used to be said, below the salt. Q99 Kelvin Hopkins: With a unitary system of If you look at the old Treasury when it was in the Government it is very important to sustain Treasury, it was always regarded as the place where pluralism—different centres of power if you like, people did not want to go to, where the best people countervailing forces within the sphere of did not serve. That was one of the reasons why it was Government. One of those has been the Civil Service. taken out and put to the CSD. Then when the CSD The Civil Service World newspaper has warned that had been there for a few years, because the Cabinet removing the Head of the Civil Service from the heart Secretary was stronger, the CSD lost status, and of power, as they describe it, will reduce the capacity management of the service lost status. Then when it of the Civil Service perhaps as a check on Ministers. came into the Cabinet Office it was put into something In our system of Government that is important, is it in which I worked for a while called the Management not? And will this not have that effect? and Personnel Office, which was also below the salt. Lord Wilson of Dinton: It is absolutely central to our One of the things I did as Cabinet Secretary and Head constitution that we have checks and balances within of the Civil Service was to bring it into the Cabinet Government. The main check and balance is meant to Officer proper; I do not think anyone is arguing about be the Cabinet, and the difference of views and splitting it off again. But it has always struggled to collective responsibility that you have between get to the point where management is regarded as different Cabinet Ministers. That is where the power important enough for proper, really able people to do. is, and the Civil Service is there to advise. Ultimately The great struggle of the service has been to say to if Ministers wish to overrule them that is their people, “Take this seriously.” It is not enough to be Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 19
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO good at policy. You have really got to be good at of this Head of the Civil Service, and then make it making things happen in the real world. That is what more difficult to lead this programme of change. the electorate want. That is what Parliament wants. That is what this Select Committee actually asked for Q106 Robert Halfon: But every other Department in its report in September. I do not see that as being has its own Permanent Secretary, and, given the about being Sir Humphrey; it is about trying to hold Cabinet Office has so many responsibilities now, on to what we have struggled to acquire culturally surely it should have its own Permanent Secretary just over a long period of time. I am worried that taking it responsible for the operation of the Cabinet Office. I back into a Department and making it a sideline of a cannot see why that is a problem. busy Permanent Secretary, marginalising it, is a signal Lord Wilson of Dinton: Can I just come in on that? I that it is going back into the past. That is what I am think you are entirely right that there is some force of trying to say to you. gravity which means that units keep getting sucked into the Cabinet Office. One of the jobs of whoever is Q102 Robert Halfon: I would say you are resisting appointed, if we use this term “the Cabinet Secretary this. We are teasing out the flaws, but the Civil Service and Head of the Civil Service”, has always been to resisting this is a bit like the Pope saying a Mass at sweep away the bits that have outlived their the Vatican, it is just what we expect you to do. usefulness, because most units have got a life of about Lord Turnbull: I want to rebut this, really. The reason two or three years and then they begin to tail off. I do not like this scheme is because I think it will When I took over I did a review of Cabinet Office, weaken the apparatus for bringing about reform of the and I found we had the washed up hulks of old units kind this Committee has advocated. The Cabinet from the previous 20 years, which we needed to Secretary, with a close link to the Prime Minister, move on. generates an authority. If you are trying to persuade So I think it has to lean against getting too big. the Civil Service to swallow some difficult medicine, Underneath this combined role of Cabinet Secretary the fact that the person leading the service has the and Head of the Home Civil Service, which I still authority of the Prime Minister means that you have believe is the right title, you can have a Permanent more authority in persuading your departmental Secretary running the Cabinet Office. I am arguing that the two roles should remain together with colleagues to go down this line of accepting change. whatever support arrangements you need—and you By fragmenting the job, and particularly marginalising can debate what that should be—rather than having the titular Head of the Civil Service, as we fear, you this important role of Head of the Civil Service given will weaken the ability to drive a major programme as a kind of hobby. Last week Douglas Wass gave a of change. fascinating contribution, a real insight into what it was like in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He described Q103 Robert Halfon: Would you accept that the the Head of the Civil Service as a light duty. If you Cabinet Office has grown in terms of its really want to talk about the past, that is the view of responsibilities in the last 10 years, and even further that time, which I do not personally share. I believe under this Government? For example, it is responsible the Civil Service does need leadership if it is going to for Mr Flynn’s favourite, the Big Society, and so on. make big changes, so I think we are more modern Would you accept that it has grown? than that. Paul Flynn: The creation of the “ineptocracy” we usually call it. Q107 Robert Halfon: I agree with your first remarks Robert Halfon: Would you accept that it has grown to the Chairman when you said there is going to be bigger in terms of responsibilities? an issue: if there is a crisis, who is going to be the Lord Turnbull: I have appeared, I think before this person responsible? Can I ask you this? As I Committee, or possibly the Constitution Committee in understand it the Downing Street Permanent Secretary the other House, and have not favoured adding is removed under this new equation, and the Downing executive responsibilities to the Cabinet Office. So Street Permanent Secretary’s job becomes the new adding a whole series of units to it— Cabinet Secretary’s job. Is that right? Lord Wilson of Dinton: You look as if we know the Q104 Robert Halfon: But it has happened. answer. I believe you to be right. Lord Turnbull: It has happened, and I do not think Lord Turnbull: I thought what is happening is that that growth has helped the Cabinet Office. the old job I once had, the Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, so head of a private office, will Q105 Robert Halfon: Whether it is right or wrong is re-emerge, and that would be a reasonably senior job. a different issue; it may be wrong or right, but that is another discussion. The reason I am asking is, given Q108 Robert Halfon: Does it matter that the that it has now increased responsibilities, surely it Downing Street Permanent Secretary is going to go? needs to have its own Permanent Secretary entirely Lord Turnbull: No. responsible for those Cabinet Office affairs. Lord Turnbull: Ian Watmore’s job at the moment is Q109 Robert Halfon: And what do you think are the the delivery and reform of an efficiency agenda. He reasons for merging the Downing Street Permanent will not give that up. I interpret this as enhancing his Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary? status in this thing, and one of the problems is that as Lord Turnbull: Formally the Private Office in some you enhance his status, you begin to reduce the status sense is part of the Cabinet Office; it is supporting the Ev 20 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
Prime Minister. But it should be a distinct entity that old. But the concept that the Civil Service is there to lives on that side of the door and seeks its advice from support Ministers at the top of the Civil Service in the the Cabinet Office side of the door, and you do not formulation of policy, and that someone else will take blur it. If you blur that distinction the Prime Minister away execution, is fundamentally flawed because the will gradually suck the resources out of the Cabinet role of Government ultimately is to make things Office into his own personal use, and it is important happen for the electorate in the outside world with the to retain a function that is serving the Cabinet as a consent and agreement of Parliament and so on. whole. Unless the Civil Service in its own way is integrated Lord Wilson of Dinton: There is a real point behind in looking at policy proposals in the light of whether the argument that the job of the Cabinet Secretary is they can actually work or not, and able to mobilise to support the Cabinet collectively and not just the the resources to make it happen, then the taxpayer and Prime Minister. It is very important that the rest of the the electorate are not properly served. Cabinet should see the Cabinet Secretary as someone they can go and talk to if they have a problem in their Q112 Paul Flynn: This is just the rhythm of politics, Department. They should not just feel that whatever is it not? Like the Fulton Report, I am very old. I they hear from the Cabinet Secretary is going to be watched centralism come in and then localism come played straight back into the Prime Minister. in. Things ebb and flow and go backwards. It is interesting that the New Zealand Administration is Q110 Robert Halfon: But if you merge those roles currently considering combining into one post the together, Downing Street and the Cabinet, surely that three separate roles there that cover the two jobs that position becomes the ear of the Prime Minister? we are talking about. It is a question of fashion and Lord Wilson of Dinton: No, that is why I quibble what looks right and the demands of the Coalition at slightly at your suggestion that the two roles are being the moment. But I think there is a political price to merged. I think the role of Permanent Secretary in pay, as you rightly say. I would not accuse you of just Number 10 is being left in Number 10, but, as Andrew saying that when you were in charge it was a period Turnbull just said, it is the Principal Private Secretary of perfection that could not be improved. job, and that is right that it should remain there. I Lord Wilson of Dinton: It was the opposite. think the job that Jeremy Heywood is going to do is a different job, and one that supports the Cabinet Q113 Paul Flynn: But I think the judgments you collectively and, of course, the Prime Minister as make are very convincing on this, particularly this Chairman of the Cabinet. point about the separation, which seems to be the But if you have the two roles combined it is possible main one, of policy and execution of policy. Would for a Cabinet Minister to go and say, as I did when I you like to expand on it in terms of what has happened was Cabinet Secretary, “I have got this problem in my in the last few days? Department.” And you go through it, and the problem Lord Wilson of Dinton: Which of the many things is partly about the policy changes that are needed and that have been happening? So much is happening at the areas they have got to tackle, but it is also about the moment. how they organise themselves and the key Chair: The Border Agency. appointments they make in order to implement it. There are all sorts of examples, and Health is a good Q114 Paul Flynn: Yes, the Border Agency. I am one. following with absolute fascination the policies of If you separate the roles, the Cabinet Secretary will Francis Maude. This phrase of “ineptocracy” is be able to talk about one half of it, but you have got irresistible. It comes up again and again because someone else who is involved in the other half—such nothing appears to be working. You cannot go on as appointments. I think that is right, although when running a Government that just blames the last you look at the job description it is slightly unclear. I Government when virtually every initiative introduced never used to have to ask myself, “Am I acting as by the Government either does not work or they have Cabinet Secretary or as Head of the Civil Service?” done a U-turn on it. because the two were integral. I think the jagged edge Lord Wilson of Dinton: You have to resist the you get is very, very awkward to make work. The temptation, which I do understand from time to time, Cabinet is better served by having one man or woman of thinking there are so many ideas and so much has they can go and talk to who has got it all within been tried. You have said somewhere that you feel their compass. weary of it; it may have been on your blog— Paul Flynn: Reading my blog? I do commend you. Q111 Paul Flynn: I am in awe of what you say. You What a splendid wide view you have of life. referred to the danger of separating policy and Lord Wilson of Dinton: —and I can understand that. execution. Would you like to say a bit more about But I do believe in such a thing as good government— that? You just referred to this jagged edge. There is perhaps I am one of the last romantics. I think that we no merit in this except circumstances. It is not a do struggle on the basis of experience towards trying question of new ideas coming forward. You had to do what is fundamentally deeply difficult to do. enormous experience in this. It is just a bad idea, is Government is inherently messy and awkward. But it not? you can say, on the basis of experience, that some Lord Wilson of Dinton: I have said what I feel. I am things work better than others. All I am trying to argue a child of the Fulton Report, which I think was for is what I think, on the basis of my experience, seminal in all sorts of ways, although it is now rather does work, and I feel quite strongly about it. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 21
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
Paul Flynn: I shall ask no further questions because not achieve the change in public service reform that it the evidence you have given is so convincing. would otherwise have done. So that is part of the heritage. Q115 Kelvin Hopkins: Every Government and Lord Wilson of Dinton: I come back to your question Prime Minister has their own style. Without inviting about Jeremy Heywood. Through that period, Jeremy you to be indiscreet about your time, both of you Heywood, who was principal Private Secretary at that worked for Tony Blair. time, played an absolutely crucial role in keeping Lord Turnbull: This is true. dialogue open between Number 10 and the Lord Wilson of Dinton: Yes. Treasury—I tread carefully in this area—and in acting as a policy adviser. That is a role which I would guess, Q116 Kelvin Hopkins: That is an established fact, I because I have been out of this now for nearly a think. But Tony Blair was determined to drive through decade, bloomed into the role of Permanent Secretary his own revolution, if one likes, and he took more recently. It is a role that has to be done in policymaking very much to the political field with lots Number 10. Andrew did it. With the exception of of special advisers and so on. The present Prime Douglas Wass, all the Cabinet Secretaries you had last Minister seems to want to hand that back to a senior week—Robert Armstrong, Robin Butler—performed policy civil servant, in a sense. My impression, you this Principal Private Secretary role, and it is a crucial have said differently, is that Jeremy Heywood very role. When I was dealing with Number 10, Jonathan much wants to get his hands on policy and drive Powell was involved in the Northern Ireland peace policy through and wants to leave administration to process. That took up a lot of his time, rather than other people. So his role is, in a sense, a bit more like the Principal Private Secretary role, which Jeremy did Jonathan Powell than Sir Humphrey and your good persist in carrying out. selves as traditional Heads of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretaries. Would you say that is fair? Q117 Kelvin Hopkins: I appreciate that things Lord Wilson of Dinton: I am not sure I understand changed over time. When Blair first took over he had the question. I do not think Jeremy is like Jonathan to accept a lot of Cabinet Ministers he did not really Powell. Can I just make a point about the Blair years? want because they were old Labour, but they were It is so easy to look back at them through the lens of elected Shadow Cabinet Members, and all of that. But what actually happened. We know the story now. the story of Blair is that he governed through sofa When I took over as Cabinet Secretary they had been government, by a walk in the woods, by secret cabals in power for six or seven months, and they were still with his own special advisers. That was where policy feeling their way as to what sort of Government they was determined, rather than in discussion with the wanted to be and how they wanted to run it. When I Cabinet Secretary. And indeed the Cabinet was had my private talk with Mr Blair before he offered outside that world. We came to understand that the me the job, management did not feature very large in Cabinet became a mere cipher in fact, and that even it. There were all sorts of other things he talked about. Cabinet Ministers were increasingly controlled by He was always in favour of reform and modernisation, special advisers loyal to Downing Street headquarters. those words featured large, but reform and Lord Turnbull: We should be looking now at whether modernisation for what? They took quite a long time those things improved under the Coalition. Looking to come to a head, and in a way it was with Andrew from the outside, I think they have. One of the benefits that their views were more formulated. There was a of the Coalition is you cannot do things in quite the tendency at the beginning to attempt micro- Blairite/Brownite way. There is a formal, published management, which moved on to the setting up of the programme, and the Cabinet Committees have been Delivery Unit, a proposal which I put forward to them revived. The Cabinet itself has been revived, and more to try to select the things to be focused on. The first of Government goes through the traditional processes. Blair Parliament was a period when a lot of Ministers I think that is beneficial. Whether it has got to a state who had never been in Government before were of grace is another question, but partly the learning the job and were climbing a steep learning personalities and partly the requirements of the curve. A lot of my time was engaged in trying to help Coalition have brought the state of Government back in that process, punctuated with some four wars and a towards where people like the two of us and our three number of major episodes like 9/11, foot and mouth, predecessors want it to be. the fuel protest and so on. Lord Wilson of Dinton: I gave evidence to the Iraq Lord Turnbull: I think there were two phases. There Inquiry on this question at length, which is on the was the first Parliament. Excepting the devolution record. I think that the easiest way to explain what settlement, which I think has worked rather better than happened to the Cabinet Committee system and many people thought, he came to a point in about process in the Blair years is to say that there was one 2001 when he thought, “I have not really made any view, which I accept, which is the conventional view progress on domestic public service reform.” So there of collective Government and the role of the Cabinet was a great flurry of activity. He set up the Delivery Committee system. I happen to think it gives you the Unit, which I think was effective. He also set up the best chance of reaching good decisions, though it is Office of Public Service Reform, which I think was no guarantee. But New Labour came to office with a not. When I was recruited as Cabinet Secretary and very different view of how to run Government, the Head of the Civil Service that was what he wanted role of the Prime Minister and the role of the Cabinet. me to concentrate on. Then within days of my arrival I do not want to repeat what I said there unless this the Iraq War took over, so that whole second term did Committee has got a lot of time. Ev 22 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
Q118 Chair: Would it be true to say that a Cabinet Lord Wilson of Dinton: Can I just make one quick Secretary who is not also Head of the Civil Service point on that? It is very hard to know where truth lies would find it harder to police the tendency towards in all this, but when Andrew took over I suspect that sofa Government? one of the things that lay behind their wish to see the Lord Turnbull: There is a danger that this person gets role of Head of the Civil Service taking more of his sucked into it if it were happening. time was that they did not particularly want a Cabinet Lord Wilson of Dinton: That is right. Secretary who might be playing the traditional Lord Turnbull: I think it is more likely, particularly Cabinet Secretary role and banging on about it. if you have been the Permanent Secretary at Number 10 and then you become Cabinet Secretary Policy. Are Q124 Robert Halfon: The new Permanent Secretary you going to find yourself acting as the lone official to the Cabinet could speak truth to the Prime Minister. consigliere in this group? This is something that I do not see why these changes will stop that from Jeremy Heywood is going to have to fight against happening. In fact you will get more than one voice, constantly, because in some senses there needs to be which would be a good thing. some distance. There are times when the Civil Service Lord Turnbull: Where does the number three in all has got to speak truth unto power and advocate things this, the Head of the Civil Service, come? He is not that are not what Ministers want to hear, and it is even in the central hub of Government, and physical easier to do that with a bit of distance and not being proximity is important. It makes a difference to how constantly at the Prime Minister’s side. people work. Lord Wilson of Dinton: I think Andrew is absolutely Robert Halfon: That is not the case, because on the nail. This question of distance is very according to this, the job specification, he jointly important. You must always be in the Cabinet Office chairs all meetings— on that side of the green baize door, able to keep just Lord Turnbull: Can I say something about this thing? that bit of distance from what is going on in Number If you are the Head of the Civil Service, on the one 10. hand you are told that you lead the top 200 with the responsibility of succession planning, induction Q119 Chair: Bluntly, do you think Jeremy is going training, and chair the Senior Leadership Committee. to be a bit vulnerable? You think, “Great, I have got a very clear job here.” Lord Wilson of Dinton: No. What I was trying to say Then over the page, jointly with the Cabinet Secretary earlier was that he is going to have to do a different you “manage the Permanent Secretary cadre and chair job from the one he has been doing for Number 10. all meetings of Permanent Secretaries”. So immediately with those two things, instead of having clear functions, they are intertwined. So where on Q120 Chair: But that is Sir-Humphrey-speak for earth do you sort out the clear demarcation? He has something more difficult. got problems to the left of him. Then the Head of the Lord Wilson of Dinton: There was a suggestion last Civil Service is told that he leads on all these week that someone who is Head of the Civil Service workforce issues of pensions, pay and numbers, but as well as Cabinet Secretary would find it difficult to that is what Watmore is doing. So no one has got a speak truth to the Prime Minister. I think the opposite job description that has clear edges. You have to work is true: you are in a better position if you have the full in tandem with someone else and negotiate, and it weight rather than half the weight of the job. does not look to me as though it is clear. I made a speech when I was Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service about the case for a Civil Q125 Robert Halfon: Lord Wilson, when I asked Service Bill. Number 10 may not have liked it. I why the Cabinet Office should not have a Permanent showed it to them. But I made a speech, it is on the Secretary, you said it would be perfectly all right if record, and I was able to do that because I had both there was a de facto Permanent Secretary, and under the jobs. the existing arrangements you can have a de facto person running it. That would lead to exactly the same Q121 Kelvin Hopkins: As a person of the left I do problem as you have just described. not like the policies that are emerging, but I was in Lord Wilson of Dinton: First of all, nothing I said fact very much in favour of the shift back towards was intended to suggest that Jeremy Heywood will genuine Cabinet Government and so on. not do his job well. I am absolutely confident in him, Lord Wilson of Dinton: I think it is terrific. I think he is terrific. I think he will understand the point I am making, so I do not want to be Q122 Kelvin Hopkins: This move now strikes me as misunderstood on that. Secondly, when I was Cabinet a mistake, the sort of thing that might have happened Secretary and Head of the Civil Service I did have a under New Labour but did not. I very much second Permanent Secretary who ran the Cabinet sympathise with what you are saying. It is very Office and who took off me, for instance, the important in our system of Government to have Modernising Government agenda. I did have a lot of checks and balances, to have a Cabinet Secretary who support, and I had a very good Head of the Economic is grounded in the Civil Service, able to speak truth Secretariat, who also worked for Andrew, who took unto power, as you say—to the Prime Minister when off me a lot of the policy issues. There is no problem needed. with that. I am arguing for keeping the two roles together and not having the jagged edges that this Q123 Chair: Briefly? present tripartite arrangement seems to me to have, Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 23
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO where you have the Head of the Civil Service appointment processes a year. You go through the somewhere outside the centre of Government working process of defining the job, looking at the shortlist, for the Prime Minister and this team in the middle interviewing the candidates, possibly interviewing the who could well be taking a different view. That is very frontrunners. That is a very time consuming process, different, and I think having Ian Watmore working to but it is absolutely essential if you are going to bring a Cabinet Office Minister and the two of them in and promote people of the highest quality. That is separately talking to the Cabinet Secretary and the why the job took so long. You can say, “Well, I will Prime Minister is awkward. let someone else do all those interviews for the head of whatever agency.” Fine, but I think you lose Q126 Greg Mulholland: Clearly there are concerns something. about the implications for the split, but there are also Lord Wilson of Dinton: Visibility is also important. I some very simple human implications of the time used to go out around the country and talk to large commitment involved. The job description for the groups of civil servants. I used to make about 100 Head of the Civil Service includes the phrase asking speeches a year. I suspect that is the sort of thing that the candidates to say how, and I quote, “they would will be squeezed out, and I think the Service will do the job alongside their existing role.” But, also, suffer for it if it goes that way. the job description extraordinarily does not give any indication of the time involved in the role. I have Q127 Greg Mulholland: Being blunt, do you think certainly never seen a job description that does not do it is possible to run the Civil Service in addition to that. Do you not think this is a recipe for confusion managing a busy Department? What effect do you and problems in the future? think the sharing of these two roles would actually Lord Turnbull: If I look at what is assigned to this have on the Permanent Secretary’s existing post and then say “How much time I did spend on Department? those issues?”—Richard may have his own answer— Lord Wilson of Dinton: If you are in the Home I would say I spent 40% to 45% of my time on this Office, which I have run for three or four years, and clutch of issues. It could even be 50%. How on earth you have a sudden crisis and the Minister wants to see you do that in addition to being the Permanent you, you have to go to the Minister. Believe me, in the Secretary of a major Department of State I have no Home Office, the Minister wants to see you because idea. something has just come out of a clear blue sky more Lord Wilson of Dinton: The time I devoted to being often than you would think—perhaps you would this Head of the Civil Service swung depending on what week. The Department will take priority because the crisis we had on during the various military needs of the Department are imperative, they are there campaigns—Kosovo or Afghanistan or Desert Fox or and they are now. The needs of the Civil Service, as Sierra Leone—or foot and mouth or whatever. That Andrew said, will be a core of things that are quite was pretty time consuming; those things absorbed a time consuming that have to be done. lot of my time. However, when we had the big reform programme, which we launched in 1999 with the Q128 Chair: That is the same for the Cabinet Permanent Secretaries combined behind it, that was Secretary, is it not? my top priority and I spent a lot of time on it, taking Lord Wilson of Dinton: Yes, it is true for the Cabinet it out round the Civil Service. We had gatherings of Secretary. All I can tell you is that it is possible to run 300 to 500 Civil Servants all round the country, and I the Cabinet Secretary job with adequate support in a attended and took part in them all. It does vary, but way which allows you to move from priority to averaged over time I would go along with Andrew’s priority. guesstimate of 40% to 45%. I think that would be roughly what I did too. I cannot tell you the Q129 Chair: So does it not then depend on the Permanent Secretary job that has got 40% to 45% of support that the Head of the Civil Service would have its time spare. If there is one I should hope someone in that Department? would have done something about it. So it is as long Lord Wilson of Dinton: They are going to go down as a piece of string in the sense that, if you do not this route. They are going to end up with someone have the time to do something, you do not do it. But doing the job of Permanent Secretary other than the I think the role will suffer. Permanent Secretary, if they are going to do it Lord Turnbull: There are two things that take a great properly. I am not for names, but I think that is what deal of time. There is a reference here to managing you are likely to have. the Permanent Secretary cadre. I had two meetings a year with every Permanent Secretary—probably 35 of Q130 Chair: It is fairly obvious, isn’t it? them—one to say, “What are you trying to do this Lord Wilson of Dinton: Yes. year?” and secondly to come back and say, “And what did you do? How much of this have you achieved?” Q131 Greg Mulholland: Considering the pace of This in turn led to a discussion about pay, promotion change currently in the Civil Service, do you have or whatever. concerns that making this role an add on—as you The second is that the process of choosing Permanent comment, it is not even strictly a part time role—has Secretaries, you may say, is more bureaucratic, but it implications for the necessary commitment to manage is much more rigorous and there are many more open that pace of change? And what time commitment of a competitions. If you have got that many Permanent senior person do you think should be needed to be Secretaries you probably have seven major Head of the Civil Service in this sort of environment? Ev 24 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
Lord Wilson of Dinton: I think the challenges facing because if they do spend a lot of time at the centre the Civil Service now are or ought to be pretty what is their Secretary of State going to be thinking substantial. Francis Maude made a speech last year about it? They will be quite interested to know what saying there are vast new challenges for the Civil is going on. Service and outlining all of them. I read them and I What happens when there is a conflict of interest? thought, “Gosh, those are big, substantial challenges”; Because there will be conflicts of interest. they require leadership and a good, active hands-on Chair: We will come to that. role in relation to your fellow Permanent Secretaries, as Andrew has just described. Q133 Alun Cairns: Thank you, Chairman. That is The point about the Cabinet Secretary post is that it precisely the point that leads from Mr Mulholland’s comes and goes. There are times when it is all questions to mine about the job description. But demanding, but there are times when you can do quite before I come to those, can we talk about the conflict a lot else for the Service. I think that in a Department of interest, but also maybe conflict of credibility? Let the demands are more consistent and considerable, us assume that there is a drive to improve procurement and I do not think you would have the energy or the across Government, and the Head of the Civil Service hours in the day to lead and spearhead the kind of happens to be in the Department where their record of challenges that are being described. It must be implicit procurement is not particularly strong. in this that what the Government is expecting of the Lord Wilson of Dinton: I cannot think which one you Head of the Civil Service, despite the description, is are talking about. less demanding than the kind of speech that Francis Maude made. Q134 Alun Cairns: How would that be seen across Lord Turnbull: Inevitably what will happen is that the Government, how would it be addressed and would Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office becomes in there be a conflict of credibility? effect the COO of this organisation, and the Head of Lord Wilson of Dinton: Yes, there would be a conflict the Civil Service becomes a more representational, of credibility. On the one hand you would be standing titular thing—the person who is carrying the message up making speeches as Head of the Civil Service, to the outside world and to the rest of the Civil arguing the case to your colleagues about how Service. The actual hard grind of looking at Civil important it was they took this vital function seriously, Service remuneration or pensions, or the shape of and they would all be looking at you thinking, “Ho, Departments, will end up staying in the Cabinet ho, ho, look at your own backyard before you say it Office. If the Head of the Civil Service role becomes to us.” So there is a real potential. I also think—or are too much of the dignified part of the Service it will you about to go on to conflict of interest? lack authority. What we are suggesting is that—either by keeping the thing together and then creating the Q135 Alun Cairns: No, please do. Job description is support mechanisms, or, even if you split it, then by my next question, but please carry on with conflict not splitting a second time—you maintain the of interest. authority of that role on a much better basis. Lord Wilson of Dinton: I also think there is a conflict Lord Wilson of Dinton: When I was thinking about of interest because there will be situations where your this Committee I was asking myself what advice I Secretary of State will not be at one with the centre. would give if I was mentoring one of the potential All Secretaries of State from time to time get into a candidates for the job. I was wondering whether I situation where the centre takes a different view from would say to them, “Go for it,” or “Don’t go for it.” them. Sometimes it is quite often, depending on On the whole I would tell them to be jolly wary about personalities. In that situation you will be on the one going for this post. It sounds great and it has got hand saying to your Secretary of State, “I think this is history; you know that in years to come Select how you should handle the centre,” and on the other Committees will summon you when you have retired, hand you will be going to the Prime Minister saying, and you know that is a great privilege and honour. “This is how I think we should be behaving in relation Nonetheless, despite those benefits and perks, the to the Civil Service implementing this policy.” I danger is that you will find that power is being cannot give you exact chapter and verse, but I can tell exercised at the centre, and you end up being the you the tensions are very hard to manage. visible face, the person who is sent up on television to front for it, but the weight of the decision making Q136 Alun Cairns: Lord Turnbull, have you is still being held in the seat of power. I would caution anything to add on that? them a bit. Lord Turnbull: People say, “How can this person manage the Civil Service knowing they may face Q132 Robert Halfon: Would that not depend on some accusation under it?” Well, you could say that personality? is true of the Cabinet Secretary, but I think it does Lord Wilson of Dinton: All of this is conditional on make this more difficult. I do not find plausible this personalities. The person doing the job may have a idea that you can be head of profession, so to speak, terrifically good relationship with the centre, manage for the Civil Service. to spend time on that relationship and make it work. This Committee have looked at the fact that the role Andrew rightly said the Civil Service is very good at of the Civil Service Head of HR was abolished and making things work, so they will make it work. For attached to, in a rather analogous way, the Department the purposes of this sort of hearing, one has to make who had the most senior or distinguished HR person. it slightly black and white, but the points are real, That is in a sense what is happening to this. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 25
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
Q137 Chair: It has happened to other roles too, such planning role that needs to be passed over, so that the as Chief Information Officer. real Head of the Civil Service remains in the Cabinet Lord Turnbull: Yes, and I do not think it is a good Office? idea. I spent a lot of time setting up Centres of Lord Wilson of Dinton: What would you call the job Excellence headed by people that were leading the if you did not call it Head of the Civil Service? profession as a whole. The absolutely sine qua non Alun Cairns: I am speculating. for making this arrangement work is that the HR post Lord Wilson of Dinton: I like the idea of having a is recreated. Head of the Civil Service because it is a role that people recognise, and if you destroyed it you would Q138 Chair: In the Cabinet Office? lose the weight that goes with it. It is worth having Lord Turnbull: But if it is in the Cabinet Office, of weight and spending a bit of time trying to establish course, it has also to work for the Head of the Civil the role. Service. That is where you get the difficulty. Where Secondly, I think if you change the name people does the Head of the Civil Service find their staff would not know what it was there for. At least they from? So that job has to be recreated. have some idea of what goes with the role. You would lose some advantages. The point about Head of Q139 Chair: So do you want a CSD again? Information is relevant. I had the Head of Information Lord Turnbull: I would not call it the CSD because working for me in the Home Office, and one of the it sounds as though—a bit like old MAFF being the first things I did when I went to the Cabinet Office Department of Farmers—it is representing the was take him into the Cabinet Office, because I just producer interests. I would not call it that. It is about thought it made much more sense to have him there the Public Service Reform. than within a particular Department. Q140 Chair: Efficiency Reform Group, perhaps? Q143 Alun Cairns: My final points relate to the Lord Turnbull: Well that is what the Cabinet Office meetings of Permanent Secretaries, which will be is doing. That is why in looking at this design of the thing you have to look at the Watmore/Maude jointly chaired by the Head of the Civil Service and alliance, because they are very, very important players the Cabinet Secretary. Is that a recipe for disaster, or in it. I think the existence of that is part of the efficient will it dovetail quite neatly? part of this constitution, and the Head of the Civil Lord Turnbull: It will not dovetail neatly. It will not Service job is going to be the dignified part of it. be a recipe for disaster because they will find some way to make it work, but ultimately over time I think Q141 Alun Cairns: Can I pursue the issue around one of these two will establish a supremacy over the the job descriptions? Does the job description, which other, and that is likely to be the person that is closer we have touched on briefly, include all of the to the Prime Minister. responsibilities and duties that you see for the Head of the Civil Service; and how has the post changed Q144 Chair: If the Cabinet Secretary is responsible since the time that you left the role? for policy, presumably he would chair the policy Lord Turnbull: I think it does, and that is part of the discussions, and the Head of the Civil Service would problem. It is a very big job and not something that be left doing pay and rations. can be achieved in that last 10% extra that you can Lord Turnbull: That is exactly the lesson; we are squeeze out of some hard-worked individual; it is a trying to get away from that division with Professional pretty comprehensive definition of the role. For Skills for Government, because you cannot be a top someone who does not have staff working directly class, world class organisation if you are not world with them and has a responsibility to the Secretary of class in all the bits of it. You cannot just be good at State or the Department, maybe employing thousands policy. If you imagine the old days of local of people with billions of money, this is a big government, it was always the chief legal officer who workload. So it is not what is missing here; it is the was the town clerk. If we recreate something like that, fact that there is so much of it. That is what worries the guy at the top is always the Head of Policy. But me. you have to bring so many other disciplines into play Lord Wilson of Dinton: I think it is pretty to be effective. This division is going to a world where comprehensive given the limited number of words you policy is being elevated as something really special, can use. I find myself thinking of nitpicking: where whereas many of the failings of Government are not does security of individuals lie; or where do honours policy at all, they are simple delivery issues. lie; or where do contingencies lie? When Mr Blair said to me one morning, “I want you to take over the handling of foot and mouth”, was that as Cabinet Q145 David Heyes: In light of all you have said so Secretary or as Head of the Civil Service? But those far it seems there will be a very short shortlist for this things can be resolved. In principle it has got the main job. Will any Permanent Secretary worth his or her bones of the job. That is good enough and the rest can salt be interested in applying for this job? Will you be sorted. have anyone to mentor? Lord Wilson of Dinton: That is the sort of question Q142 Alun Cairns: Are we missing the point in this we are all asking each other in private. argument—maybe it is the title of Head of the Civil Service that is wrong? Is it really a succession Q146 David Heyes: Answer it in public. Ev 26 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
Lord Wilson of Dinton: In public, I am sure there are George has suggested Jim So-and-so, but I don’t think always people who will be prepared to put themselves he is up to it. What about So-and-so?” that causes forward in the interest of the public service. problems surely? Lord Wilson of Dinton: When the Head of the Civil Q147 David Heyes: That is a polite way of saying Service was in the CSD—I am really talking about not the best. Lord Croham—he would put in his recommendation Lord Wilson of Dinton: No. Can I just make one to the Prime Minister. The Cabinet Secretary would point? Andrew and I are having quite a good time go along, say on Monday, and the Prime Minister putting this argument together. I do want to make the would say, “Have you seen this recommendation? point that the people we are talking about are hugely What do you think of it?” And even just a silence able. Jeremy Heywood is terrific. The Civil Service does it. So that is what we mean by proximity, simply has got some very fine heads of Department. I know that you have the ear of the Prime Minister. Then you they will put their backs into making this work, and I could just have that sort of very short conversation in am sure whoever gets the job will be first rate and which you say another name, and someone grunts. will make a good fist of making it work. I do not want in any way to feel we are undercutting them. We just Q153 Kelvin Hopkins: Then it is leaked to the press want to give you our views, and that is what we by someone. have done. Lord Wilson of Dinton: And then the service knows it, so there is a problem there potentially. Q148 David Heyes: Why would anybody want the Kelvin Hopkins: Point made, Chairman. job? Lord Turnbull: They will still think that the Cabinet Q154 Paul Flynn: Another broken politician’s Secretary is the premier job. When it next comes up promise: I have to come back about this. I am looking they may think they are the heir apparent, although of forward to the Adam Werritty affair and possible course there is a man who is barely 50, if he is even future scandals. When Gus O'Donnell—when God 50, so it does not look as though it is a very good bet becomes a trinity, which personality of the trinity as a stepping stone on to something else. would investigate new Adam Werritty type scandals? David Heyes: I will leave it, Chair. You have covered Lord Wilson of Dinton: I have to say, Mr Chairman, the other points, thank you. that is not really a question I can answer. I do not feel that I can answer it Q149 Kelvin Hopkins: The new Head of the Civil Service will be jointly responsible with the Cabinet Q155 Paul Flynn: You have read the— Secretary for the appointment of other Permanent Lord Wilson of Dinton: I have read this, but I don’t Secretaries. Do you envisage difficulties for them in think it is in there. managing their peers in this way? Lord Turnbull: Under the present arrangement the Q156 Paul Flynn: What have you got to say about Cabinet Secretary, working usually with the Civil that? Service Commissioner because these are increasingly Lord Wilson of Dinton: The Civil Service Code is the open competitions, runs the process of selection, and, responsibility of the Head of the Civil Service under having previously through the Senior Leadership that job description. But the Ministerial Code, as far Committee looked at all the succession possibilities, as I can remember, is not mentioned. makes a recommendation to the Prime Minister. So that process is the same, except there are two people Q157 Paul Flynn: Liam Fox said, “With hindsight I doing it. You cannot really have the Head of the Civil should have been more willing to listen to the Service thinking it should be a certain person, and concerns of those around me,” which I presume were then it goes to the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet Members of his own Department. Secretary overrules it. Lord Wilson of Dinton: Yes, I think so.
Q150 Chair: He would not need to, would he? He Q158 Paul Flynn: We had another example, not as could just persuade the Prime Minister to not accept serious as this, of the Ministerial Code being the decision. disregarded by the Secretary of State for Communities Lord Turnbull: Absolutely, that is what I mean. and Local Government, who was accused of attending Lord Wilson of Dinton: That has happened when the a meeting and not declaring it. The meeting was run two posts were separate in the 1970s. I know that to by lobbyists for customers, and the excuse for not be the case. doing this was that he was eating privately that day instead of ministerially. I mean there is a theory that Q151 Kelvin Hopkins: That is slightly humiliating he has actually got two stomachs in which he digests for the Head of the Civil Service. ministerially and he digests privately. This is not an Lord Wilson of Dinton: Absolutely. entirely plausible excuse. When people try to run circles around the Government’s own Ministerial Q152 Kelvin Hopkins: If it is one person there is no Code, who polices it? Is it God or the Trinity? problem. The Prime Minister does not like the Lord Wilson of Dinton: At the moment it is the proposal, and the Cabinet Secretary says, “Well all Cabinet Secretary/Head of the Civil Service. Anyone right, that was my choice—our choice.” But if the who has done that job will tell you there is regular Cabinet Secretary is saying to the Prime Minister, “Sir flow of situations of one sort of another where people Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 27
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO either want advice or have got into trouble and you the weekend. Number 10 asked me for a rapid report. have to deal with them. Under the new arrangement I I did a very fast report, which, as it happens, was a do not know the answer, I am sorry. confidential report, but is actually on the public record as an appendix to the Hammond Report. My advice at Q159 Robert Halfon: Because it was a Cabinet issue that time was that there was not a shred of evidence in the case that my friend was talking about, and it that I could find, having talked to Permanent was a Cabinet Member, surely it would then be the Secretaries, that anything improper had happened. job of the Cabinet Secretary. That was not the view that Number 10 took, and you Lord Turnbull: It is implied by omission; the fact that know the story. The point I am making is that I think it is not allocated to the Head of the Civil Service that advice was right to remain confidential. It was implies that it would go to the Cabinet Secretary. private from me to the Prime Minister about his Robert Halfon: So that is not a reason for saying this handling of the Minister. He then said to me he potential form is not a good one, because it is quite thought this was getting out of hand and wanted to do easy to work out who would be responsible for more, and I said, “I think you should have an inquiry,” dealing with that and the Adam Werritty issue. and I found Sir Anthony Hammond to do it for him Chair: But if it went to the Cabinet Secretary does because we did not have Philip Mawer in place at that not suggest that the Cabinet Secretary is still top that time. dog? Robert Halfon: Does it not suggest that the Cabinet Q162 Chair: Is it not slightly unfortunate that Sir Secretary is responsible for that particular area? Philip Mawer was never asked to look into anything? Lord Wilson of Dinton: I think it is a very valuable Q160 Paul Flynn: It is like the Holy Trinity. It is a role. It is quite common for the Prime Minister to say mystery and needs an act of blind faith to believe in to the Cabinet Secretary of the moment, “Something it, which I am sure you will provide. Our previous has blown up. For goodness’s sake find out quickly witnesses warned that the new Head of the Civil what you think may have happened.” I can remember Service will have a very “nasty dilemma” and a very a number of instances, I will not detail them, where great difficulty if they are faced with allegations of that happened. misconduct. That was the evidence made that week. That is particularly with regards to loyalty to his or Q163 Chair: That is not quite my question. her own Minister, but they also have a duty to the Lord Wilson of Dinton: The point is it was private Prime Minister. Did this not fall down in the Liam from me to the Prime Minister. I think it is not the job Fox case as far as the Ministry of Defence were of the Cabinet Secretary to carry out an investigation concerned? They were owing their loyalty to Liam into a Minister. Fox, and their mouths were bandaged as far as expressing their loyalty to the Prime Minister and the nation. Q164 Chair: That seems to be what Sir Gus O’Donnell did. Lord Wilson of Dinton: There is always the potential in any job in the senior Civil Service of having to ask Lord Wilson of Dinton: I wrote it into the Ministerial yourself whether your loyalty is to your Secretary of Code actually. Those words are my own words, if you State or to the Prime Minister. I have been in that read the Ministerial Code. It is not the job of the Civil situation years ago. You do have a duty to the Service to investigate Ministers. Government collectively is my own answer. If you are the Permanent Secretary and you have a problem Q165 Chair: But that is what occurred. developing, you ought to go, under the present Lord Wilson of Dinton: He was doing, in my terms, arrangement, to the Cabinet Secretary and say, “I have a quick preliminary report. The issue is whether it got a problem developing, and I think you ought to should have been published. know there is a real difficulty there,” and talk about Lord Turnbull: In the Liam Fox case it all blew over it. The Cabinet Secretary may steer you and say, “I so quickly that it was not necessary to go into a larger think this has actually got the potential to be serious, inquiry. The major crime in the Fox case was the and I think maybe the Prime Minister should have a failure to observe collective responsibility. The chat with the Secretary of State and tell him there is mystery is why that charge was never brought against something wrong here.” That is how it ought to work, him in this report, and I think they were on the but it obviously did not in this case. doctrine of, “Don’t kick a man when he’s down, when it’s all done and dusted.” Q161 Chair: Do you agree with our witnesses last Chair: There was a bit of a lack of collective week that the advice prepared for the Prime Minister responsibility under the previous Government. What in the form of a report on the Werritty affair should about Clare Short? have remained confidential advice to the Prime Minister; that the right person to deal with the Q166 Robert Halfon: Can you explain? substantive complaint was Sir Philip Moore and not Lord Turnbull: He was running a separate policy on the Cabinet Secretary? Sri Lanka, which was the responsibility of William Lord Wilson of Dinton: These situations arise and Hague. Then he employed a man to do it, and then he they are never quite the same. Do you remember the found the money to pay the man. I think that is the Hinduja affair, when Mr Mandelson had a phone call sequence of it, but they started with the Werritty bit of to Mr Mike O’Brien? That blew up in the press over it rather than actually what he was using Werritty for. Ev 28 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
Paul Flynn: What we are seeing is the present are 17 principal Government Departments, which are Government in many ways trying to avoid the separate entities […] They run their own Departments, mistakes of the Blair Government. With the Hinduja so of course there is going to be inconsistency across affair, Peter Mandelson resigned the second time the piece.” Isn’t the problem that there is no when really there was no case against him, but it was mechanism for providing that leadership to ensure a reaction by a nervous Government against the consistency, or not enough mechanism or weight? number of square inches of bad publicity in the paper. Units may not be a substitute for it, but however small To his credit, the present Prime Minister waited until and efficient the Cabinet Office remains, it is not the evidence was there and did not rise to the press delivering this very fundamental function. hysteria that preceded it, although as it turns out he Lord Wilson of Dinton: If the political will is there, did prolong the issue of it. But I think that is what we and it is evident to the Civil Service, the Civil Service are seeing constantly: the reaction of the Government will follow. There are all sorts of examples from—as to press, trying to avoid the errors— she then was—Mrs Thatcher’s time, where the fact Chair: Is there a question in there somewhere? that something was known to have the political will Paul Flynn: No, there is not. I have just heard all this of the Prime Minister behind it meant that great wisdom. Departments did do what was required. It is about political will and political leadership and the right Q167 Robert Halfon: You were talking about the signals going out, and people knowing that if they did role of the Cabinet Office and how it has expanded. not do it their Ministers would have a rough time in Could I ask whether you think that is a good thing, Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee. And they did. and if not what would you do? Where would all these Lord Turnbull: You have given an example where units go, in which Department and so on? coordination is needed, but you do not necessarily Lord Wilson of Dinton: I always hanker after keeping bring it right into the Cabinet Office. The regeneration the Cabinet Office small and excellent. I would want agenda from the early 1980s onwards was located in to look at these units, some of which I think are the Department of the Environment that Richard and executive and should not be part of the Cabinet Office, I both served in, but it needed to bring together the and look for a kindly home for them. But I cannot resources of the Department for Employment and answer what kindly homes are because I have not Education and the DTI as it then was, and it was an done the work. effective way of doing it. It was not taken into the Lord Turnbull: We have a Department called centre simply because it crossed boundaries. You can Communities and Local Government, and we have a have a lead Department who then have to make sure community issue, i.e. Big Society, and it is not that the other interested players get involved. allocated to the Department that has the title for it. Deregulation started in the Cabinet Office and ended up in BIS, which is probably where it should be. They Q171 Chair: I support you on that in that the come in; sometimes you can stop them coming in— bringing of units into the Cabinet Office on specialist they may even need a bit of Prime Minister’s subjects is a symptom of failure rather than progress. imprimatur—but quite quickly I think we have then Lord Turnbull: Well it can be. to allocate them to a proper home. Q172 Chair: But the point I am making now, which Q168 Robert Halfon: Do they not go into the our report made in September, is there is such a big Cabinet Office because they are various Prime agenda for change across Whitehall, not least the Ministers’ key policy areas? downsizing agenda, combined with decentralisation, Lord Turnbull: The threshold of proof, so to speak, Big Society, post-bureaucratic age, transparency and of something that needs to be in the Cabinet Office openness, that there needs to be more of a leadership should be set pretty high. By and large you will find role from a Cabinet Office than there has been in the there is a Secretary of State who has two thirds of that past otherwise you finish up with this sense of agenda, at least. frustration that nothing is happening and everybody is doing things differently in different Departments. Q169 Chair: Is this not all symptomatic of a failure Lord Wilson of Dinton: You can have units for a at the heart of Government, or a failure across particular purpose. As Andrew said, you should set Government? These units are all born of frustration the bar for them very high, but there is a case for that nothing appears to be happening and so the Prime them. One of those cases is challenge. I think the Minister wants somebody to get a grip, and so he pulls setting up of the Central Policy Review Staff under it under his responsibility into the Cabinet Office and Mr Heath to challenge the conventional wisdom of sets up a unit with his chosen people involved with it. Departments was hugely effective for a period. You Is that not a symptom of a deeper problem? could similarly have a unit whose role was to Lord Wilson of Dinton: It is possible for a Prime challenge Departments on the Big Society, something Minister to make sure things happen in Government that the Prime Minister wanted to ensure had enough without themselves feeling they have got to do it and drive across Government. Or efficiency: under Mrs it has got to be under their thumb. Thatcher, the Efficiency Unit was very powerful and effective for a time. All I would say is you should Q170 Chair: Let me follow that up immediately with always try to keep the number of units down and the vast new challenges referred to by Francis Maude. recognise that their main period of usefulness is about He said that, “Government is not a single entity. There two or three years. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 29
8 November 2011 Lord Wilson of Dinton GCB and Lord Turnbull KCB CVO
Q173 Chair: I am agreeing with you, but the Lord Turnbull: I have not read it word-for-word in its problem is: how do you drive change when you have new form, but I think it has dealt with this question got so much change? Is there an alternative manner? of whether it is trying to be a new authority on Lord Wilson of Dinton: You have to select the things something. The answer is no. Virtually every that you put weight behind. statement that is made should be referenced back to something else, whether it is a piece of hard law, soft Q174 Chair: So the Government has bitten off more law, some code, the principles of Erskine May or than it can chew. whatever. I think those footnotes have clarified the Lord Turnbull: Did you read the Coalition document? purpose of the document greatly. There are about 400 pledges in there. Q178 Chair: And to that extent should it be treated Q175 Chair: It is too much. more like Erskine May—we leave it to the Clerk of Lord Turnbull: And because they were in there, there the House to update Erskine May—rather than being was the implication that you work immediately on all a more political document that is signed off by 400, whereas a manifesto would normally last for an Ministers as Government policy? entire Parliament. I think that process of the Coalition Lord Wilson of Dinton: It should not be signed off as has contributed to this overload because once it is in a political document. I rather like the Erskine May there— parallel. It is a good idea for the Cabinet Secretary to show it to the Prime Minister from time to time when Q176 Chair: So it is not that the Whitehall machine a new edition comes out just to make sure there isn’t is not up to it, it is just overload. something there that they are not happy with, because Lord Wilson of Dinton: It is confused. The message if there is problem it ought to be ironed out. gets confused. I remember the Head of the National Health Service came to me and said, “I have 72 top Q179 Chair: It does not need to have a picture of the priorities.” And I said, “In that case you have not got Prime Minister and a foreword in the front of it? any.” Lord Wilson of Dinton: No, not at all. I think it is Paul Flynn: It is another reaction to Blair. Blair said a case where a Select Committee can chalk it up as he did not do enough in his early days, so this somewhere it has had a useful impact. Government tries to do an impossible amount. Chair: We will not win all rounds with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, but we won Q177 Chair: You very kindly came before us on the that one. Thank you very much indeed. You said at matter of the Cabinet Manual, and we are very pleased one point that you get summoned in front of these with the Government’s response, which seems to have Committees. I would submit that we only ever invite annotated the document much more fully and made it former Cabinet Secretaries. Thank you very much clear that it is not an embryo constitution. Have you indeed for your advice. You have been very helpful. any other comments on that? Ev 30 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
Tuesday 15 November 2011
Members present: Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair)
Alun Cairns Greg Mulholland Paul Flynn Lindsay Roy Kelvin Hopkins ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History, Queen Mary, University of London, Professor Colin Talbot, University of Manchester, and Professor Tony Dean, University of Toronto, gave evidence.
Q180 Chair: May I welcome our first three witnesses Why is that? Reforming the Civil Service cannot be to this session of our inquiry into the role of the Head done on a truly part-time basis, with quick trips on of the Civil Service? Could each of you identify Friday afternoons to benefit or tax offices. Running a yourselves for the record? big Department plus that job is a recipe for constant Professor Dean: I am Tony Dean, Professor of Public fire fighting and desperate time management, with not Policy at the University of Toronto. enough time for thought or discussion on developing Lord Hennessy: I am Peter Hennessy, Attlee a strategy for Civil Service reform. Professor of Contemporary British History, Queen It is also amazing, if you think about it, that the old Mary, University of London. Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Professor Talbot: I am Colin Talbot, Professor of Service duality has been split into four: National Government and Public Administration at Manchester Security Adviser last year; Cabinet Office Permanent Business School. Secretary this year; Head of the Civil Service this year; and Cabinet Secretary. To use a metaphor that Q181 Chair: Thank you very much indeed for might appeal to you, given your interest in defence, it joining us today. I start by asking a very broad is a kind of Trident missile front-end solution, because question: do you feel that the post of the Head of the it is breaking up into multiple independently targeted Civil Service is being downgraded by the changes re-entry vehicles. That is not necessarily the right being proposed by the Government? metaphor to choose, but it just shows how Lord Hennessy: Yes. fragmentary it is becoming. I am pretty sure we will Professor Talbot: Yes. have a new front-end to the Whitehall configuration Professor Dean: Yes, certainly. of Permanent Secretaries by the 2020s. This is not Lord Hennessy: Can we go? going to hold, nor do I think it is desirable for now.
Q182 Chair: Do you think the Prime Minister is Q183 Chair: In your metaphor, is the Prime Minister cutting off his nose to spite his face by removing the launching this missile or is he on the receiving end? Head of the Civil Service from his immediate Lord Hennessy: He is the only one who is authorised environs and his immediate circle of advisers? to launch, Bernard, as you well know. That means we Lord Hennessy: Can I elaborate a little bit on my can all sleep easier in our beds. answer? Professor Talbot: The breaking up of the role into Chair: Please do. four or three—and I prefer the troika analogy of the Lord Hennessy: I notice that last week the Prime Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Office Permanent Minister said in reply to your question, Chair, at the Secretary and Head of the Civil Service— Liaison Committee, “I really feel, in my bones, this is Chair: The Father, Son and Holy Ghost. the right decision,” but he wisely recognised straight Professor Talbot: Yes, it creates a very strange wiring away that a future Prime Minister might take a diagram. I will concentrate on the Cabinet Secretary different view. I do not think there has ever been a and Head of the Civil Service roles. It seems to me right orthopaedics, as you might call it, here—to take we are very much in danger of creating a Cabinet the bone metaphor a bit further—because there has Secretary who has power without any responsibility never been a configuration of Permanent Secretaries and a Head of the Civil Service who has responsibility around the centre that has ever appeared to be in quite without any power to actually do anything. You have a steady state; it depends very much on personalities, a Cabinet Secretary who is purely going to do policy; the Prime Minister and the figures concerned. This it is quite clear from the way it is described that the configuration, as the Prime Minister made plain to role is all about co-ordinating policy across the heart you, does seem to fit his preferences, the strengths he of Government. Obviously that is a particular concern has—or thinks he has—and those of Jeremy for a coalition Government and probably needs to be Heywood. However, it does not provide the strength done, but nevertheless the Cabinet Secretary is no needed by the Civil Service as a profession and a longer going to have any real responsibility for federation of Departments, which is why I was implementation. That is going to be hived off as a unequivocal in answering your first question. separate responsibility, which seems to be divided Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 31
15 November 2011 Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Professor Colin Talbot and Professor Tony Dean somewhere between the Head of the Civil Service Therefore, you did the dual role of Head of the Civil role. Service and Cabinet Secretary for a much smaller Certainly in the job description of the Head of the organisation. How did you manage your time in that Civil Service role, all of the objectives are about role—how did you split your time? change, managing change across the Civil Service and Professor Dean: I had worked in the Cabinet Office implementation. That person is going to be outside of for several years before I became the Cabinet the core of Whitehall, in a Permanent Secretary’s job Secretary, and had the benefit of watching as their day job and with very little real power over predecessors. As a result of that experience I went into other Permanent Secretaries. However, there is a real the job with the view that I needed to take at least danger that they will be the person who takes the 50% of my time and dedicate it to the CEO role. opprobrium when things go wrong with Somebody asked me a couple of weeks ago: if I were implementation, rather than the Cabinet Secretary, to go back into that job and do anything differently, who has no responsibility for it. what would it be? It would be to devote more of my So, as Peter says, I do not think this arrangement will time to the Head of the Civil Service role. We had an hold. It is clearly entirely based on personalities of the organisation of 66,000, which is small in comparison moment and, in my view, that is not the best basis for with yours. making these sorts of configurations. Professor Dean: Firstly, I agree with everything my Q185 Chair: Does it have separate Departments like colleagues have said: the further you move from the we have Whitehall Departments? Cabinet Office and the centre, the more diluted your Professor Dean: Yes, it mirrors those Departments. influence and power becomes. The job of a Permanent We have 26 or 27 Ministries, each with a Minister and Secretary of a Department is huge in its own right, a Permanent Secretary. It is based almost entirely on and to combine that with the job of the Head of the the Westminster model. Civil Service is going to be troublesome. I will step back and think about this from an Q186 Chair: The argument we often seem to come organisational perspective. We have a national across, advanced by the Institute of Government and organisation with a global reach employing something the Minister for the Civil Service, is that we have a like 450,000 workers, nationally and outside the much looser arrangement and a much more federated country. A budget of something like £700 billion runs structure of Government Departments than a through the hands of the senior levels of that commercial corporation, and the analysis that you are organisation. It has a massive change agenda, which putting forward does not recognise that. What would you talked about in September in terms of leadership. you say to that? Its work affects every aspect of people’s lives in the Professor Dean: I would say that I have worked not country and every aspect of business life. Would we just in a federal constitutional structure but with a look at an organisation of one-tenth the size and federation of Ministries. It is important to recognise influence of that scope and think about giving the relative autonomy of those constituent Ministries. leadership to a part-time Chief Executive Officer? I I also learned that we are one corporation—it is called do not think so. The CEO job is huge. In public sector the Government or the Civil Service—and its staff, organisations generally we underestimate the managers and leaders have much in common. As importance of leadership, we do not elevate it enough much as we talk about a loose federation, we also talk or give it enough focus. This is a job that requires about the necessity of joining up and integrating, both dedicated leadership, particularly given the scope of in terms of policy planning and delivery. the change agenda in front of you. One of your three priorities from the September report When you look at the scope of the job description, talked about cross-departmental working. We are which is a job description for a full-time dedicated deeply siloed; the more negative language used leader, given all of the other challenges associated around the looseness of federations is that we are with this, the more dedicated and focused this can deeply siloed and deeply departmentalised. My become, the better. We have been having a discussion experience both in Government in Canada and since, about the relative merits of one part-time job versus in working around the world, is that you find that another part-time job. The job, as it currently exists, departmentalism and silo-based culture in lots of is a part-time job. I have tried to do that job in a organisations, both in the public and private sector. smaller context, with a workforce of only 66,000 Most people are trying to work across, and that does people, and to juggle the job of Cabinet Secretary and not happen on its own; it requires very strong Head of the Civil Service is an enormous undertaking. leadership. What it has going for it is that one tends to be dealing with issues at the centre, either the Prime Minister or Q187 Chair: The Government is trying to address premier’s concerns or with corporate-level issues. If that by creating a more generalist top management to you start taking that job and mixing it with the issues the Civil Service. For example, the Permanent of a Department, you make it much more complex Secretary in the Ministry of Defence actually comes and you reduce its status. from another Department. Is that going to address that silo mentality? Q184 Chair: To press you a little further on this, Professor Dean: It will in part, but on its own it will your experience, if I am correct, is as Secretary to not be successful. Departments develop their own the Cabinet and Head of the Ontario Public Service. culture. Ministers tend to focus on their own mandates Ev 32 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
15 November 2011 Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Professor Colin Talbot and Professor Tony Dean and pull their Permanent Secretaries into those is not even a job description but a brief outline of mandates. My personal experience and observation of what one of the jobs is supposed to be. other situations tells me that, unless you have a strong public service leader who has management Q189 Paul Flynn: I have 4,000 civil servants in my supervisory control with direct lines of accountability constituency, and they have difficulty understanding from Permanent Secretaries, and who is spending an why at the top one job is going to be done by three enormous amount of their time working to drive people, when at the bottom one person has been asked cross-departmental working, it probably will not to do the job of two or sometimes three people. This happen because you are pushing a large boulder up a might cause undue woe and cause them to be even steep hill. more upset than they are now. Do you think it is wise Chair: Thank you Professor Dean. We are extremely politically to go ahead with this? grateful to you for flying over from Canada especially Professor Talbot: I do not think that by itself is going for this session. to have a huge impact. To be fair to the Government, they are saying this is cost-neutral, but, as you say, in Q188 Paul Flynn: Can God go through a a context where civil servants lower down are being metamorphosis and become a Trinity at nil cost? asked to do a lot more for less in most cases; that is Lord Hennessy: It depends how you measure cost. It obviously problematic. I do not think that is going to costs money if you have a few more top jobs, but the be the key issue; I think the key issue is going to be cost is uncertainty: who is doing what and what the that nobody knows who is in charge. demarcations are. It is all very well for a Select Committee that knows its way around this subject Q190 Paul Flynn: Do you think it is sensible to very well and for, in my case, a creature of nerdery— adjust the roles of the job to the personalities of the I would not say my colleagues fall into that category, people who are available to do the job? but I do—who has always been interested in this, but Professor Talbot: No. Obviously you are always think how far down the line interest in this goes in the going to configure an organisation, to at least some Civil Service. In the benefits office this week they are extent, around the pre-existing personalities. However, speaking of little else I am sure, but it will not last. in most cases, in both the public and private sector, Who does what? Who is the head of profession? Who you tend to try to configure the organisation by do we look to if there is a row? Who do we turn to if thinking about what sort of organisation you want the Civil Service Code or part of the CRaG Act seems first, and then think about who should fill the various to be breached? I think it just adds layers of confusion. roles within it. This seems to have been built entirely Above all, there is the effect on the Wednesday around the predilections of the now Cabinet Secretary. morning meetings, and I suspect it is very difficult to get the Wednesday morning meetings of the Q191 Paul Flynn: Almost all our previous witnesses Permanent Secretaries to operate in a corporate way have thought that the rupture between policy creation anyway. You could argue that, because our tradition and policy implementation is a bad thing; would you is a loose federation—with Departments as individual share that view? regiments with special banners of their own and Professor Talbot: Absolutely, and I said that in my special formations—you have to be even more subtle and careful in your use of time if you are going to note to you. I think this is a continuation and almost steer what is a loose federation, rather than a centre- a culmination of a series of changes, like Next Steps gripped outfit, like Whitehall. So I think the costs in and Professional Skills for Government—which you human terms and confusion terms are very high. have investigated before as a Committee—and this Professor Talbot: I would first of all add something separation of the roles of policy making and about the context of all this. We have to remember implementation. That has always been the problem for that the Civil Service itself is going through one of the British Civil Service; that has been its one big the most traumatic periods it has been through in the weakness. last 30 or 40 years. There are massive job losses, pay freezes and pension issues, as well as a whole range Q192 Paul Flynn: In your report to us you said that of major initiatives that they are responsible for in those who can do policy, i.e. the Cabinet Secretary, imposing the cuts agenda on the other 90% of the and those who cannot get the tedious job of managing public sector. There are massive reforms to welfare the Civil Service. benefits, to education, to health, the localism agenda Professor Talbot: That was a quote from a Permanent and the whole supposedly post-bureaucracy approach Secretary when the review was undertaken 10 years of downsizing Government. into the Next Steps programme. This did not appear In the midst of all that, we have this confusion about in the report but it was said to Pam Alexander, the these roles at the centre. It really is confusion. I take person conducting the review. The Permanent Peter’s point entirely; I find it difficult enough to get Secretary said to her, “Those that can do policy; those my head around what the separate roles of the that can’t run executive agencies,” and I think that is Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, the fairly emblematic of the sort of culture that still exists Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service around this. are going to be. It is entirely unclear to me what the three job descriptions are and how they are going to Q193 Paul Flynn: Do you know of any independent overlap. We have only had one job description, which person who thinks this is a good idea? Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 33
15 November 2011 Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Professor Colin Talbot and Professor Tony Dean
Professor Talbot: The separation of the role of a bit like apartheid in South Africa, which was operations? supposed to be about separate but equal development, but in practice one side lost out rather badly. That is Q194 Paul Flynn: Yes, the separation of the role. exactly what happened with Next Steps. There are Professor Talbot: If you could get Sir Peter Kemp very few Chief Executives of agencies who have back, I am sure he would give you a strong advocacy made it to be Permanent Secretary. Peter is absolutely for that position right: the intention was that people going through the Fast Stream should go out and get this experience of Q195 Chair: To be fair, Sir Douglas Wass felt that it managing and doing the heavy lifting, as he puts it. was a good idea. Lord Hennessy: This reform is almost entirely Q199 Chair: To be fair, if you are running an agency, friendless, as far as we can tell from the outside. you need lots of troops. Policy making and policy advice do not need lots of troops. Q196 Chair: I think the reform as currently Professor Talbot: No, that is true, but my point is that, configured appears to be friendless. I wonder if Lord if you were after the top jobs, you did not want to be Hennessy could say a bit more about the role of policy in agencies. The reality was that most top jobs were making and the role of managing the public service. never filled by anybody who had ever had any Do you think this panders to the prejudice still latent experience of running an agency. Michael Bichard is at the top of the Civil Service that advising Ministers one of the few exceptions of people who made it to on policy is the pukka job, and actually running things be a Permanent Secretary from having run one of the is the gulag? large agencies. I cannot name another. Lord Hennessy: It goes back to the automatic pilot Lord Hennessy: Geoffrey Holland had run Health and that the Northcote-Trevelyan report created when it Safety before he became Permanent Secretary at worked its way through. It is very powerful. One of Employment. There are others but they are rarities. the many purposes of Next Steps—and I was and remain an enthusiast for the Next Steps changes—was Q200 Chair: If you are an agency head, you are quite to try to ensure you could not get to any of these top likely to be hunted down by the Secretary of State. jobs without having done a heavy-duty management Lord Hennessy: Yes, it is not an easy position. stint on the way, as part of your portfolio. Jeremy Heywood is a very gifted man, an extraordinarily Q201 Chair: Do you have a comment on this, good man to have next to you in tough times, and I Professor Dean? may be wrong but I do not think he has done any Professor Dean: As important as policy is, I think we heavy-lifting managing jobs and I suspect he is a can sometimes be in danger of overstating it at the stranger to running an agency. expense of thinking about the culture of our The reform of the 1980s was accepted by the Labour organisations and the need to build capacity in those party in opposition and John Smith as being a party- organisations. neutral reform—an improvement of the state from which any Government could benefit. The particular Q202 Chair: That is an understatement, isn’t it? aspect of it—that you could not really rise to the top Professor Dean: Yes. I grew up as a policy-maker in without becoming a pretty ace manager or at least Government, and the higher I went in the organisation, doing a good bit of time on the management side— the more I understood the importance of delivery and seems to have lapsed. However, it is what people join what it takes to work with the people in our up for really. If people are excited by policy, in the organisations to try to shift us from good way very good graduates usually are, because it is organisations—and yours is a very, very good one— interesting and fun and plays to their skills, there is to great organisations. You do not get there by something not only unglamorous about management thinking about the very best policy. but also frightfully sloggy and boring. It is It would be one thing if in our organisations people tremendously earnest. were uniformly of the view that we had reached the pinnacle of policy-making excellence. I do not think Q197 Chair: The prejudice exists in politicians as that is the case; we hear lots of concern about the well. capacity in our organisations for good policy making. Lord Hennessy: Absolutely. I am too polite to suggest To get at that you need to get at the capacity of the that, but you are absolutely right. workforce, the culture of the organisation, Professor Talbot: I would just add that, in the mid- cross-departmental working, bringing the best out of 1990s, by the time Next Steps had been fully staff and bringing the best out of leaders. implemented, we had about 10% of the Senior Civil So the work of a CEO, of a head of public service, is Service working in agencies with about 90% of Civil about that side of the business of Government. Take a Service staff, and about 90% of the Senior Civil step back, strip away the history and culture of the Service working in Whitehall Departments with about surroundings we are in, and the Civil Service is 10% of the Civil Service staff. essentially, like other public service organisations, in the business of providing services. It provides services Q198 Chair: The implication is that must be wrong. internally: policy planning, delivery, and Professor Talbot: Well clearly, yes. The analogy I communications to the Prime Minister, Ministers and use—it is in the note I submitted to you—is that it is to other civil servants. It also provides services Ev 34 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
15 November 2011 Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Professor Colin Talbot and Professor Tony Dean externally to the public and to business through all of think you can translate that to: there is no such thing its Departments. You look at that organisation and ask as an implementation problem in policy; there is just what makes other complex, large, massive, influential, bad policy. A policy that has not been thought through professional service organisations successful and in terms of the details of how you can actually make powerful. Then we need to look at how we build the it happen, in terms of people, resources, capabilities capacity, the architecture, the energy and the in the Civil Service and the rest of the public service, enthusiasm to make this organisation great. That is not clearly has not been thought through properly. all about policy making; it is about building People who have no experience of actually managing organisations and sustaining organisations. It is about public services or the executive end of the Civil bringing the very best out of people. Service have no real possibility of thinking through It is sometimes the case that the people who are those sorts of problems. That is not to say you cannot brilliant at policy making are not the best at bringing have people who are very skilled in policy analysis as the best out of their organisations and managing their part of the mix, as Tony said, but part of that also organisations. So policy is extremely important, but has to be people who have skill at recognising the there is a whole lot of stuff that goes on in large and difficulties of actually implementing things. They complex organisations like this one around policy that need not just say “No, Minister” or “No, Prime is important and that contributes to good policy Minister” in constitutional terms but also “No, making. In public sector organisations we sometimes Minister” or “No, Prime Minister, in practical terms downplay that stuff, and we do not give other types that simply is not going to work.” There are plenty of of work and professions the parity of esteem that we examples around at the moment where it is obvious give the world of policy making. that certain things are not going to work in existing Government policy, but nobody seems to have stood Q203 Paul Flynn: Is it not revealing that both the up to the Government and said that actually they Prime Minister’s evidence at the Liaison Committee cannot do that. and the evidence from many people who have come before us have referred to these changes in terms of Q206 Chair: Peter Oborne has used the term the Yes Minister series? The Prime Minister is trying “courtiers”. Is that unfair? to solve the problem of Bernard and Humphrey and Lord Hennessy: It is a little bit, but if you come up putting them together. In New Zealand we see the the super-Private Secretary route, which Jeremy reverse of this change going on, with three jobs going Heywood has, it can look very much like that. into one. This owes much more to the neurotic desire of politicians to change things rather than to any Q207 Chair: Is he a super-SpAd? perceived improvement that is likely to come about. Lord Hennessy: No that is deeply unkind; that really Lord Hennessy: I think there is a lot in that, and last is going too far. There is the human problem, though, week I was talking to an old Cabinet Office hand who of Prime Ministers. I do not want to be too unkind to retired a while ago, and he said there is another Yes the recently departed, because everybody else is being Minister problem, which is who is going to be the one so unkind to him, and the one before—Tony Blair— to say, “No, Prime Minister” when necessary. At the but if you have an excessive sense of personal destiny, apex of the Civil Service you have to have someone as I think Mr Blair did, you tend to surround yourself who really will speak truth unto power and say that with people who reinforce your sense of specialness: something is just not on, not just when it is an how indispensible you are to your party, Parliament, obvious, flagrant breach of the Ministerial Code or the the country, Europe and the world. There is a mixture CRaG Act but when they really need someone to say, of having people who tell you that and also a comfort “Wait a minute.” blanket of people who think in the same way as you. I always think the model for the private office or the Q204 Chair: That will be the Cabinet Secretary, top SpAd in Number 10 should be the Monsignor who won’t it? walks in front of the Pope flicking dust into his eyes, Lord Hennessy: I hope so; Jeremy Heywood may metaphorically speaking, and saying, “Sic transit well be the one to do all of that. Of course it cannot gloria mundi,” which roughly translated means, be in any job description here because it is faintly “Watch it matey, you too are mortal.” Destiny Prime insulting about the political class, but it damned well Ministers do not look for the equivalent of that should be. Who is going to say, “Come off it,” or, monsignor, and they should do. I do not think David “Wait a minute, no, Prime Minister”? Who is going to Cameron is like that, although it is not for me to know, do the speaking truth unto power? It is not for me to so I do not think it is as acute a problem as it once suggest what you might put in your report— was. You hit real trouble with somebody with an excessive sense of personal destiny in Number 10 and Q205 Chair: Oh yes it is, you are a witness. the court that naturally grows around them, but you Lord Hennessy: That would not be bad for paragraph need a medieval historian to help you with that, not a one though, would it? contemporary British one. Professor Talbot: I just wanted to add one thing to what Tony said. One of his compatriots, Professor Q208 Kelvin Hopkins: I want to pursue your point Henry Mintzberg, who is a very well known writer on about truth unto power, Sir Humphrey and so on. This strategy, says that there is no such thing as an change undoubtedly will weaken the Civil Service as implementation problem; there is only bad strategy. I an entity. As I have said to the esteemed former Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 35
15 November 2011 Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Professor Colin Talbot and Professor Tony Dean
Cabinet Secretaries in previous sessions, we have a the Civil Service, where should the Head of the Civil unitary system of Government, and checks and Service truly be? Isn’t the Cabinet Office the right balances are vital to make sure it works properly. place for the Head of the Civil Service? Being both the Prime Minister’s man in the Civil Lord Hennessy: Yes, if he or she was going to have Service and the Civil Service’s man in the Prime a proper job. Lord Croham, who died the other day, Minister’s office is important in that. Sir Jeremy may was a very interesting and very accomplished public finish up being the Prime Minister’s man in the Civil servant—known as Douglas Allen in his Whitehall Service and telling the Civil Service to get on with it, days—who really did speak truth unto power; he and there might be tensions there. We might see very could do no other, like Martin Luther. I got to know significant changes in the relative power of the Prime him when he was Head of the Civil Service in the Minister, the Civil Service and so on. These things Civil Service Department, his own bespoke could make very significant changes to our politics. Department. However, when William Armstrong was Lord Hennessy: It will be very interesting to watch. Head of the Home Civil Service under Ted Heath, he Given the magnitude and volatility of the problems got bored with implementing Fulton, to be direct, and that the country, Europe and the world are facing, was more than willing to be drawn into economic leading to this extraordinary concatenation of big policy making. This experience meant that Douglas moving parts and uncertainty, what we really need is Allen, who had been a consummate economic policy both professions in the governing marriage, the adviser, was kept away from anything to do with Ministers and the senior civil servants, to rise to the economic policy when he was Head of the Home Civil level of events. You really do need very self-confident Service, 1974 to 1977. At his farewell dinner in Ministers if they are going to get the maximum benefit Number 10—I was not there—he said to Jim from, I hope, very self-confident civil servants. These Callaghan that he was underused. are civil servants whose duty always, but particularly The Civil Service Department did some good, sloggy, in tough times, is to tell them what they need to know decent work, and there were some good people in rather than what they wish to hear. If you have a set there, but it was very marginal compared with the of Ministers who are not self-confident, they tend to Treasury and the Cabinet Office. The Head of the overdo the SpAdery—the comfort-blanket side—and Home Civil Service very rarely saw the Prime tell themselves fairy stories about what a lot of clever Minister, compared with the Cabinet Secretary, and deadbeats the Civil Service are. You therefore get a did not have the instruments of influence in the kind of degradation in the governing marriage. It is Departments that the Permanent Secretary to the very important that the model at the top is set for that. Treasury and his people do. So it was the worst of all I think Jeremy Heywood is extremely good as a policy worlds. If you are going to split the job, they should— adviser in bad times; he has had enough practice when at least in terms of the geography of power—be you consider where he has been when there have been absolutely central and therefore close in the Cabinet eruptions, but this is the big stretching one. In all the Office. periods in which I have watched Whitehall since I have been interested in it, from the early to mid- Q211 Chair: Should there actually be a reporting 1970s, what we are facing now makes even the mid- line? So should we accept that the Cabinet Secretary 1970s look relatively manageable. So the two is going to be the top dog, and the Head of the Civil professions in the governing marriage have to raise Service would report to the Prime Minister through the level of their game and—this might now be deeply the Cabinet Secretary? Then at least we would know in the realms of fantasy and wishful thinking—the where the power lay. SpAds have to as well. Lord Hennessy: I do not think any of them would accept the job under those terms, would they? The Q209 Chair: We might come on to them in another Cabinet Secretary will always be the top dog because witness session, to which you may be invited. of the nature of the job, although there was something Professor Talbot: I just wanted to extend Peter’s point of a dual kingdom about Jeremy Heywood being the about the relationship between Ministers and senior Permanent Secretary in Number 10 and Gus civil servants. It seems to me that the implicit contract O’Donnell being Cabinet Secretary. However, the in the British Civil Service has always been that the Cabinet Secretary is the one in terms of access, clout, Civil Service gives its undivided loyalty to the visibility and tradition. Government of the day, in exchange for which Ministers take responsibility and accountability to the Q212 Chair: So you do not see a more traditional House. That principle has been eroded over the last Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer few years, as can be seen in other Committee hearings structure emerging from this split in the roles? going on today. Ministers have come up with all sorts Lord Hennessy: I do not think so, no. of sophisticated reasons for dumping on civil servants Professor Dean: First of all, it is essential that the when things go wrong, rather than taking Head of the Civil Service is in the Cabinet Office, responsibility themselves. both for its influence and its proximity to the Prime Minister. My view would be that the Head of the Civil Q210 Chair: Some time we need to do an inquiry Service and the Cabinet Office should have, at least into the doctrine of accountability. Moving on: if it is formally, equal status, with both reporting reasonable, and it is not unreasonable to suggest independently to the Prime Minister and with access splitting the role of Cabinet Secretary and Head of to the Prime Minister. The head of the organisation Ev 36 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
15 November 2011 Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Professor Colin Talbot and Professor Tony Dean needs to be able to speak with the Prime Minister’s unusual to say the least, yet it lays out all the tasks authority and would need the Prime Minister onside. expected of the Head of the Civil Service, which More important is the relationship between the Head clearly appears to be more than a part-time role. What of the Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary, and would you say the time commitment should be or their ability to work things out together. Once you would need to be, and is there any way that some of split the roles, how they do the job together is more those tasks can be delegated, and to whom, to make important than where they are reporting and what their that at all realistic? titles are, although it is not more important than where Lord Hennessy: I thought Robert Armstrong they are situated. There needs to be a balance and an answered this very well when he came before you. It ability to speak with one voice on organisational depends on the events and the moments. If you have matters. If they are going to jointly direct the problems in battalions, as he had with the Ponting Permanent Secretaries’ cadre it is absolutely critical affair whilst Cabinet Secretary, much more of his time that they speak with one voice. I think it is inadvisable for a few weeks would be devoted to Head of the to split supervision of the Permanent Secretaries; it Home Civil Service-type jobs than normal. It is not should be resident in one position, and I think it an easy flow, and it is not a flow you can anticipate in should be the Head of the Civil Service. Being in the terms of demands. I take the point that it could have Cabinet Office and having equal status is critical to been a good idea to give a rough balance in here, but making the job work. the nature of the job is not like that. I thought Robert Professor Talbot: I agree with that almost entirely. Armstrong was very convincing when he described The analogy that keeps being brought up is yours, how it felt to have to do the two jobs. Chair, of a private sector corporation, and I think there Professor Talbot: I think there are two separate issues is a slight misunderstanding. The Chief Executive of here. One is the episodic nature of the Head of the a private sector corporation is not responsible for Home Civil Service job in relation to crises and policy and the Chief Operating Officer for dealing with those, and I completely agree with Peter implementation; the Chief Executive is responsible for about that. It seems to me that there is a much wider policy and implementation and the Chief Operating issue as well, which is that the Government seems to Officer takes additional responsibility for helping the be advancing an extremely radical change agenda for Chief Executive with implementation. the Civil Service. This is in a context where the capability reviews that were conducted five or six Q213 Chair: That is why I suggest it. years ago suggested that there were major managerial Professor Talbot: If you are going to split the roles, problems across the Civil Service. There have been a then it would seem to me that would be some sort of whole series of problems in implementation areas, logical split, and you could try it and see if it worked. which has been highlighted by your Committee, PAC, However, that person would have to be in the Cabinet the Treasury Committee and other Select Committees. Office. To have that person do the Chief Operating There is an awful lot to be done in terms of continuous Officer role as a second job to their key Permanent change across the Civil Service. Gus O’Donnell, with Secretary role seems, to me, completely unfeasible. the high profile he has adopted, has been very visible in conducting that sort of change campaign. It seems Q214 Chair: So is this all an understandable fudge to me that, unless you have somebody doing at least so that the Prime Minister can bring in someone as as much as Gus O’Donnell has been doing on the Cabinet Secretary who has never run a Government change front, not just on the fire-fighting front, there Department? is a very real danger that the Civil Service is going to Lord Hennessy: Well, he obviously feels the need for fail to meet the challenges posed by the current Jeremy Heywood at his side; he has got used to period. I think we are all saying that those challenges working with him and obviously rates him very are extraordinarily large. highly. I always have some sympathy for Prime Professor Dean: The job description very well Ministers, because it is an immensely tough job, even describes a full-time leadership job—not a in the relatively easy patches of British history, of management job but a full-time leadership job. Yet which this is not one. You want somebody next to you what is proposed is the combination of two more than with whom you have a symbiotic and natural full-time jobs. Permanent Secretary is a full-time job relationship, and he obviously has that. It seems that is and it is a big job; so is the role of Head of the Civil the first bit they have put into place: they want Jeremy Service. Episodes do not create gaps in those jobs; Heywood to be the Cabinet Secretary, and are looking they make them more difficult. at how best it can be organised. I suspect that Jeremy Heywood is more than glad not to have to do the Q216 Greg Mulholland: It is interesting that you sloggy management bit, so the design, the blob of mention Lord Armstrong. Lord Wilson and Lord DNA, from which all the rest follows is that particular Turnbull effectively said that the proportion of their central relationship between the Prime Minister and role had doubled in terms of what they had to do for Jeremy Heywood, and the rest is consequential. the Head of the Civil Service role since the time of Lord Armstrong. Q215 Greg Mulholland: Looking specifically at the Lord Hennessy: Yes, that was a very interesting point, issue of time commitment for this role, first of all it because Andrew Turnbull was appointed on the seems very strange that the job description does not grounds that he would take the lead on delivery. That say what the time commitment should be, which is was also the first time, if I remember correctly, that Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 37
15 November 2011 Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Professor Colin Talbot and Professor Tony Dean candidates for the Cabinet Secretary role had to put in someone who is coming to the end of their career as personal manifestos. Chairman, you should know this: Permanent Secretary, who will apply and sail off into did they have to put in personal manifestos this time the sunset doing that job, knowing that he was not for the Cabinet Secretary’s job? Have they had to put going to go any further. This would not give a strong in personal manifestos for the Head of the Civil lead to the Civil Service, would it? It would not be Service? somebody who is going to challenge the Cabinet Secretary or represent the Civil Service very strongly; Q217 Chair: One of our questions is whether it would just be somebody coasting into retirement. Parliament should be better consulted about this Lord Hennessy: It is unlikely to. If the person process, because we were not consulted. concerned was really quite remarkable, and had been Lord Hennessy: There was an attempt under Freedom one of the most formidable figures in his or her of Information to get the personal manifestos out from generation, it could work. I simply would not touch the last time but one, but it would be interesting to it. It is probably of great relief to the country that see that. I think it is entirely wrong that you should I would not, because my management skills amount have to make a pitch like that, I really do; it goes to zippo. against my traditionalist instincts. However, you have The Prime Minister has many gifts but his jobs in the right to send for persons, papers and records, and life have been special advising and press officer to a it would be terrific if you got the manifestos out. That television company; admittedly, trying to run the would be a great service to history. Conservative Party is not quite the easiest of Chief Executive jobs, but it does not give him the Q218 Chair: That would suggest that they have a background to know, any more than I would know, policy-making role rather than just an executive the do-ability of the Head of the Home Civil Service service role. job going on top of a Permanent Secretary job. I think Lord Hennessy: Also touting for jobs is deeply the thing to say about the Prime Minister when it undignified at that level. comes to management is his gifts lie in other Chair: That is what we do. directions. Is that fair? Chair: No comment. Q219 Greg Mulholland: To take it back to the time Professor Talbot: Somebody coming to the end of commitment, on 8 November the Prime Minister said their career who had the status that Peter was talking at the Liaison Committee that, “It is perfectly possible about would obviously be capable of saying “No, to combine that job [Head of the Civil Service] with Prime Minister” or “No, Cabinet Secretary” with being a Permanent Secretary in another Department”. some authority on critical issues; I think that bit would Lord Hennessy: How does he know? be okay. However, the idea that somebody at that stage of their career is going to be the person who Q220 Greg Mulholland: Do you agree with that and, leads the sort of transformational change the whether you agree with it or not, what impact do you Government claims to want to see in the Civil Service think it will have on the current Department of that is far-fetched, to put it mildly. Permanent Secretary? Professor Talbot: As Peter’s question indicates, I Q224 Kelvin Hopkins: Do you think it might just be thought what was interesting about the exchange with viewed as a mistake in a couple of years’ time and the Chairman and the Prime Minister was that we did might all be reversed? not even get what is jokingly called policy-based Professor Talbot: I would put money on it. evidence. The Prime Minister advanced absolutely no Lord Hennessy: I think more than a couple of years, evidence whatsoever as to why this would work or as pride is involved. even, frankly, why it was happening. He simply asserted that he felt it was the right thing to do. Q225 Paul Flynn: I want to ask about the Adam Werritty question. Liam Fox said that “with hindsight, Q221 Greg Mulholland: Do you share the concerns I should have been more willing to listen to the of our witnesses last week that, if the Permanent concerns of those around me”, which I presume were Secretary is in a major Department of State, they will the ones in the Ministry of Defence. Can it really work not have time to fulfil the role, but, if the role is taken if we have a Head of the Civil Service who would on by somebody in a smaller Department, they will have a real conflict if there is a Minister in his not have the authority for the role? Department who is suspected of flagrant misconduct, Professor Talbot: Absolutely. as happened in this case? Where is his instinct—to Lord Hennessy: It is Hobson’s choice. protect his Minister, which appeared to happen in the Liam Fox situation, or to act in his role as Head of Q222 Kelvin Hopkins: Lord Armstrong suggested the Civil Service? Is there not a problem that will be that if he were a serving Permanent Secretary he created by this change that is quite unnecessary? would not apply for the post of Head of the Civil Lord Hennessy: Again the configuration is secondary Service. to that; it is a human problem. Hugh Dalton, in the Lord Hennessy: I think Richard Wilson said the same. Treasury after the War, in one of his outbursts described the Treasury officials as “congenital Q223 Kelvin Hopkins: I am almost certain he did. It snag-hunters”. In some ways that is part of what we has been suggested that it might only appeal to keep them for, which is why we give them the Ev 38 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
15 November 2011 Professor the Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, Professor Colin Talbot and Professor Tony Dean equivalent of tenure, while they are not politically the Minister has overstepped the line. I cannot see that appointed. Of course you cannot congenitally snag happening. Also there will be a third layer in the sense everything because it would drive people to that the Cabinet Secretary will be there as well, and distraction and everything would be overdone. will clearly have more authority than the Head of the However, on questions of propriety or the Civil Service. interpretation of the various codes that are terribly important to all of this—and a lot of it is written Q228 Paul Flynn: Who do you think should police down—you do need Permanent Secretaries at the the Ministerial Code? There is criticism of allowing centre and in Departments, whatever the Gus O’Donnell to do it. configuration, to be prepared to do that when they Professor Talbot: I seem to remember there is have to. The only occasion when they have to is the supposed to be an independent— Permanent Secretary’s accounting officer’s note; that Lord Hennessy: There is. is their tactical nuclear weapon. There is so much Paul Flynn: He does exist. more to the job than that, but whatever the Lord Hennessy: Sir Philip Mawer, isn’t it? configuration at the centre, it is that human requirement, and usually it is at immensely difficult Q229 Paul Flynn: We need a seminar on the times with a lot of emotional baggage involved as existence of Sir Philip Mawer, but he is still there, well. living and breathing, I understand. Professor Talbot: There was a reason that was put in Q226 Paul Flynn: Sue Cameron has posed the place, and I am surprised it has not been used. question of which of the Trinity will take over the Lord Hennessy: The Cabinet Secretary will always be role in future in another Liam Fox situation. Who will asked by the Prime Minister, “What do you make of do it? all this?” It may not be in the job description, but Lord Hennessy: Well, it would be a combination of the Cabinet Secretary’s intimate relationship with the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Prime Minister means that, when a problem has arisen Service. that is making the political weather, as the Adam Werritty-Liam Fox thing did for about three weeks, he Q227 Paul Flynn: A combination? is bound to ask the Cabinet Secretary what he or she Lord Hennessy: That is the problem: it could fall to thinks, whatever the job description says. either. Professor Talbot: It says in the job description for Q230 Paul Flynn: Liam Fox made a welcome return Head of the Civil Service that they are going to be the yesterday; he wants to turn London into a war zone guardian of the Ministerial Code, so logically it ought for the Olympic Games, I understand, by having to go to them. I think the problem is not so much the surface-to-air missiles. That will bring the tourists. one that you have posed, which is statistically Chair: Order. unlikely—the same Permanent Secretary having to Lord Hennessy: That is a Type 45 question. deal with an issue that should be referred to the Head Chair: I would like to thank you all very much for of the Civil Service—but more likely to be where it joining us today. It has been a wonderful session. A is another Permanent Secretary and you are the Head particular thanks to Professor Dean for flying over for of the Civil Service in another Department. It is going this; it has been excellent. I note that you do not want to be extremely difficult, even though you are to comment on the Werritty affair on the policy of nominally the Head of the Civil Service, for a not wanting to intrude on private grief. Thank you Permanent Secretary in one Department to tell a for that. Permanent Secretary in another Department that they have got it wrong, should have done it differently and
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Sue Cameron, Journalist, Rt Hon Peter Riddell, Institute for Government, and David Walker, The Guardian, gave evidence.
Q231 Chair: Welcome to our three new witnesses. admirably. I am now a contributing editor of The Could you each identify yourselves for the record? Guardian’s Public Leaders Network, whose Peter Riddell: I am Peter Riddell from the Institute distinguished editor is taking a record of our for Government. proceedings today. Sue Cameron: I am Sue Cameron. I am a journalist, recently of the Financial Times but I have now left. I am going to be writing about Whitehall for the Q232 Chair: Welcome and thank you very much. I Telegraph in the new year. will start with the same question: is this a David Walker: I am David Walker. I began as an downgrading of the role of the Head of the Civil apprentice Whitehall-watcher under the tutelage of Service? Peter Hennessy decades ago. I learnt many things Peter Riddell: Yes, but with an important caveat from him, except how to tell jokes, which he does looking at the nature of the change. As proposed it Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 39
15 November 2011 Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker is a downgrading, but because there are two changes been raised before about a possible conflict of interest involved, not just one. for the Department, which Mr Flynn mentioned, and so on. Those issues are liable to come up at some Q233 Chair: Could you explain that? time, which is why I believe it will be short-lived. An Peter Riddell: As Lord Turnbull pointed out to you alternative could have been made to work, but I think last week, there are actually two splits involved. One it will create uncertainty, particularly on the driving is the split between the Cabinet Secretary and the of reform, and there are a lot of ambiguities there. Head of the Home Civil Service; the second change, David Walker: If I may say: your proceedings today which I think is the debateable one—the have had a slightly relaxed feel to them. We live in downgrading—is putting it out to a Departmental one. fiscal emergency; whether you are on the right or left It would not be a downgrading if you had the Head of politics, there are major problems about public of the Home Civil Service in the Cabinet Office and revenues and public expenditure. The leadership in charge, but as proposed, with it going out to a potential of this role and the management potential of Department, it is. some better division of labour within the centre of the Civil Service is critically important to making the Q234 Chair: So do you favour a revival of the Civil British state run better and to make it more effective Service Department? and efficient. It is actually terribly important to get Peter Riddell: No, I do not favour that. I believe that this right, and the fact is that the Government has the workload is too big for one person, and that has proceeded without any evidence. proved true over the last 15 or 20 years because I look at two members of your Committee, who might various bits have been farmed out to other quite senior at least have prayed in aid some evidence from what people. We now have a National Security Adviser; we we now have in the United Kingdom as an example also have Ian Watmore, who will effectively carry on of how things work, albeit in smaller but in interesting doing his current job in charge of Efficiency and and rich jurisdictions. We could have looked at Wales Reform. The issue is: do you delegate a responsibility or Scotland; we could have gathered evidence from or do you split a responsibility? I think that is history—Peter Hennessy gave us some of that. The defensible, but putting it out to a Department in fact that this is being done on the hoof at a time when practice will not work and will prove to be, as the role has such potential is, I think, shameful. Professor Talbot was saying earlier, pretty short-lived. Sue Cameron: Also, it could lead to Jeremy Heywood David Walker: I think it is a great shame that this very much being the Prime Minister’s man, which in Committee, with your colleagues in Parliament, were some ways is perfectly understandable and very not able to get in earlier. The work you did with the reasonable. However, it might weaken the return to UK Statistics Authority proved that there is a role for Cabinet Government, certainly at official level, among parliamentary co-ownership of important public the Permanent Secretaries. If he is very much the appointments. I fear your report on this matter might Prime Minister’s man, he is perhaps going to be be too late to influence what your previous witnesses seeing and discussing Civil Service matters much less said was a mistake; I concur, and it will be shown to often than he would have done if the two jobs had be a mistake in a period of time. Peter put it at five been combined, and that might weaken the closeness years; I think it could be less than that. on that front. Sue Cameron: It is all very well to say that it will be five years, but Jeremy Heywood is 49, so it could be Q236 Chair: Civil Service World clearly argues this much longer than you all think unless there is a real affects the independence of the Civil Service. Do effort made to change things. It seems to me to be a you agree? tremendous muddle, as Peter Hennessy and others Peter Riddell: There are ambiguities. Professor Talbot have said, and I think undoubtedly it will be seen as mentioned the point of guardianship; the new Head of a complete downgrading of the role of Head of the the Home Civil Service will be guardian of the Civil Home Civil Service, if for no other reason than he or Service Code, and presumably the Cabinet Secretary she will not be as close to the Prime Minister, and that will be the guardian of the Ministerial Code. When a is what really gives somebody clout. However, there problem comes up, such as the Adam Werritty is a muddle over it and, as far as I can see, nobody problem or the current problems in the Home Office, has a good word to say for it. both the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code come into play. There is a prospect of confusion, let Q235 Chair: As you have said in your very helpful alone in a particular Department. According to the job note. What impact will there be on the conduct of description, it is the Head of the Home Civil Service’s Government if this arrangement continues for the job to be the champion of the Civil Service, both in duration of this Parliament? terms of boosting internal morale and externally. Peter Riddell: It all depends on the individuals. We I think there will be problems, which is why the Head may learn the identity of the Head of the Home Civil of the Home Civil Service and the Cabinet Secretary Service later this morning. A lot will depend on how have to be seamless in saying the same thing when people get on. It is quite clear that Jeremy Heywood problems occur. As the first panel and Peter Hennessy will be the most senior and most influential, partly said, it is when problems occur that the tests happen, because of his existing position and partly because of and they have to make sure there is a clear line of his closeness as Cabinet Secretary. People can get on who is saying what, because there is a potential clash. if you have the right combination; however, it will Let us say that something is raised between the Civil raise lots of question marks—all the issues that have Service and Ministers where there are difficulties. Ev 40 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
15 November 2011 Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker
There is a danger of the Head of the Home Civil the senior levels at the top, with changing approaches Service speaking up for the civil servants, and the and all the things that are in your report, Change in Cabinet Secretary very much looking at it from the Government: the agenda for leadership. point of view of the Prime Minister and Ministers. This is where the disconnect worries me: I can see There are problems there. But I think there is a exactly what Ian Watmore is doing and he will have problem of the capacity, and that is why I do not think a bit more status to do it, but basically he will be you can completely dismiss a split, but it has to be working with Francis Maude on that. There is the looked at in a different way. practical question of where the Head of the Home Civil Service will be based, but not to have him in Q237 Chair: Do we think the Prime Minister is, in the same building just strikes me as weird. You could the words of Lord Butler, “throwing away one of the certainly have a model where the Head of the Home levers of power” by dispensing with the Head of the Civil Service runs the Cabinet Office with Ian Civil Service from Number 10? Watmore as his Chief Operating Officer, which is Sue Cameron: I think it weakens the links to some effectively what Ian Watmore’s job will be on extent. Lord Butler would know better than me, but I Efficiency and Reform, which has some years to go. would not have put it quite that strongly. I do think Having the Permanent Secretary in some Department there will be a weakening of links between the Prime maybe half a mile away and coming in a couple of Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and then the other mornings a week or something strikes me as diluting Permanent Secretaries, because, when the two jobs are the push to reform by splitting off the role. It is an combined, they are speaking to each other much more, absolutely crucial time, as David Walker said, where discussing Civil Service issues, going to the joint you are facing a massive fiscal challenge, and to have Cabinet Secretary cum Head of the Civil Service with that strikes me as strange. That is why I think it is issues that can perhaps be nipped in the bud. Whereas, temporary; it is all designed around the personalities when you split them, it is just going to be policy at present, and that could change. matters that are discussed, with the Cabinet Secretary saying, “Your Minister needs to do x, y or z,” and they Q239 Lindsay Roy: Structural change is only part of do not have that second string to their bow of being a broader transformational and cultural change. concerned with Civil Service issues, which are often Peter Riddell: Yes, absolutely. personnel issues, such as the Adam Werritty problem. The new system could, in the end, weaken the hand Q240 Lindsay Roy: That is the point I am trying of the Cabinet Secretary, particularly when you have to make. the idea, which most people think is barmy, of having David Walker: Peter is right: Ian Watmore is the ghost another Permanent Secretary as the Head of the Home at the feast because it looked like, under Francis Civil Service. They are not going to be that close, Maude, the Efficiency and Reform Group was driving particularly if it is going to be somebody with a big aspects of change in Whitehall, which seemed to be Department like Dame Helen Ghosh. central to the Government’s purposes. The logical step David Walker: It is not the question of the Prime looked like giving this leadership job to Ian Watmore Minister’s potency that is at issue but the effectiveness with an expanded term of reference, or for somebody of Government. What we are all saying is the to occupy that kind of role. It is puzzling that effectiveness of the Government machine has Efficiency and Reform has not seemingly played a potentially been put at risk by this move. major part in this. Can I answer your question very briefly with a recent Q238 Lindsay Roy: The Prime Minister recently example and, in effect, a negative one? It is not just described civil servants as the enemies of enterprise, spending that is the problem; it is revenue. We have and presumably he wants fairly dramatic cultural, a big problem in the management of Her Majesty’s transformational change as part of that reform. Revenue and Customs. If I can cite some evidence Professor Dean called for undistracted leadership from from the Public Accounts Committee, when it came the top of the organisation, from a Chief Executive or to a problem in the governance of that Department— Head of the Civil Service, to reform Whitehall. Can unfortunately the Permanent Secretary has stepped this new structure provide that leadership, force that down because of illness and her colleague the cultural change and build that capacity and joined-up Permanent Secretary for Tax was in the wars—the working that people are seeking? question arose: who is he accountable to if there is no Peter Riddell: The Chairman had an exchange on Minister in that Department? The Head of the Civil precisely that point with the Prime Minister at the Service, the full panoply that Gus O’Donnell could Liaison Committee. The person we have not really bring to bear, was prayed in aid, and he appeared discussed is Ian Watmore, who is a crucial figure in before your colleagues in the PAC last week to try to this in running the Efficiency and Reform Group. sort out an imbroglio in that Department. In the new Effectively he is going to carry on doing his current arrangement, it is not at all clear whether that kind of job with a bit more responsibility for managing the problem could even be addressed. Cabinet Office. Now he is the key figure who is Chair: It would be interesting to see them draw us an already driving that forward and, as Colin Talbot was organisation chart; maybe I will ask for one. saying, an awful lot is happening on change, with changes to the structure of the Civil Service. That is Q241 Alun Cairns: I would like to pursue Mr partly because of the downsizing, which is massive, Riddell just a little bit further because, with the but on the whole has largely happened, certainly at greatest respect, you partly qualified it because of the Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 41
15 November 2011 Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker workload—the volume of work is responsible—but the push to deliver changes within the administrative would not the Chief Executive and Chief Operating machine. Some of us might feel that the momentum Officer be a much more efficient way of delivering the that was evident even as late as the summer has begun goals, bearing in mind the workload you talk about? to die away. Peter Riddell: It is certainly possible. The point I want Sue Cameron: I agree with that. If anything, the to make there is the workload is massive. I think it reverse is true. One has to face the fact that Civil was an interesting point that Mr Mulholland picked Service reform and Civil Service matters on their own up on from the last weeks’ evidence about the 1990s are not going to be top of any Prime Minister’s agenda Permanent Secretaries talking about it being between most of the time. There are going to be other things: a fifth and a quarter. Then you had Lord Wilson and the economy, the eurozone or whatever. One of the Lord Turnbull from 1998 onwards talking about it great strengths of having the two jobs together is that being 40% to 45%. You cannot do it all. Even Lord you have somebody at the very top who can push Turnbull had Sir David Omand doing the intelligence reform, as Gus has done, and capability reviews, and national security work, which is now being done efficiency and all the sorts of changes that you talked by the National Security Adviser. In fact, what we about in your previous report. If you hive it off into have had under Gus O’Donnell in the last few years the Cabinet Office—and not for nothing is the Cabinet is that effectively a lot of the policy stuff has been Office known as the Department for Odds and Sods; done by Jeremy Heywood, because he is very active it has so many bits and bobs in it—it would not quite in doing that and has a very good record. I know him sink without trace but it would be a huge downgrading a bit, and I do not think he is at all afraid to speak of the whole Civil Service issue. truth unto power; he is a very formidable figure in that Ian Watmore is a very able man and a very well-liked respect. He also has some management experience. man, but I do not think he is seen by the rest of the The job has, historically, been divided up in the last Civil Service as a potential Head of the Home Civil 15 to 20 years. You now have a National Security Service, partly because he has not been a civil servant Adviser—now Sir Peter Ricketts, but Sir Kim Darroch for very long. from January—and you have Jeremy Heywood doing David Walker: That is also true of Sir Bob Kerslake, what he has been doing. So you have a reversion to who is reported as being a potential holder of the role. the past, with the Cabinet Secretary being chiefly a Kerslake is interesting for two reasons. You may have policy adviser, but there is the question of how you already talked about the report looking at the split it up: do you delegate it, which is what Mr Cairns accountability for public money in a situation where is raising, or do you try to split it? I do not see that there is a lot more devolution, both political and as being as dramatic a change if you have the right commercial; there are big gaps and you certainly seem personal links. What I do not see working is what is to need figures at the centre who have a system-wide proposed, because it is too much of a job to be done consciousness. Kerslake, coming from a local by one person; you either have to have delegation or government background, would bring to the party a some kind of split. sense that this is a system with interlocking parts; they may not fit together very well but we do need to think Q242 Alun Cairns: I would just like to pursue this a of the way we govern ourselves as a system, and you little further. In any management role, the manager do need some people at the centre who can imagine, cannot do everything—that is why they are a manager envision and maybe move forward the thing as a and they therefore delegate. Is it not the obvious whole entity. choice to have the Chief Operating Officer working Peter Riddell: I would just make one other point, for the Chief Executive? going back to the Change in Government: the agenda Peter Riddell: That is one alternative. I am less for leadership report. Underlying this is not just the critical if you have the Head of the Home Civil personality issues but the relationship between the Service in the Cabinet Office; I think that would be centre and Departments, which is a topic you have do-able and workable. I can equally see the model you looked at a lot in this Committee. One of the most suggest. You have to take account of the personalities striking things is that, even if you have a unified role, in this, and my worry there is that you could see a the Cabinet Secretary does not actually command his downgrading of reform and the Head of the Civil colleagues. He may have the key role, along with the Service role if you did it that way. In the current Civil Service Commissioner, in appointing them and arrangement with the current people, the policy job the top-level people—the Directors General and so on; would be regarded as the top job, and you could even the top 200. That is part of his function, but beyond have further downgrading if you did it that way. that, he cannot necessarily give them instructions. However, it is all to do with personalities. It is very revealing, and I say this in my evidence to you, that the Wednesday morning meeting is described Q243 Chair: Is there a danger that Ian Watmore will as a meeting of colleagues and it is very much in that turn out to be more important than the Head of the framework. After all, constitutionally the Permanent Civil Service? Secretary’s primary responsibility and loyalty is to the David Walker: That slightly depends on the politics Secretary of State and then obviously there are of your party and Francis Maude’s weight in Cabinet. statutory responsibilities to the PAC and so on as Clearly, if that were a leading push for the Accounting Officer. Underlying that is the link Government, the man delivering it, Ian Watmore, between the centre and Department, which I cannot would become more significant. So the answer to your see being helped by the Head being in the question hinges somewhat on the political potency of Department themselves. Ev 42 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
15 November 2011 Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker
Q244 Kelvin Hopkins: In my own mind I am wrong because Special Advisers often have a political increasingly seeing Jeremy Heywood as a super- role. Jeremy Heywood has served Prime Ministers of charged Special Adviser. Maybe that is writing him both parties very closely; there is a parallel with what down, but he seems like a Jonathan Powell writ very Lord Butler did, who worked for Ted Heath, Harold large; somebody who is close to the Prime Minister Wilson, Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony and is their right-hand person but is somewhat distant Blair during his career and was trusted closely from the Civil Service. In times of change and certainly by the first four of those and more difficulty, the Civil Service has to have the sense that ambiguously at the end. The same is true of Jeremy their man or woman is next to the Prime Minister— Heywood; he has very good relationships across the that they have a loyalty to him or her, and he or she parties. has a loyalty to them, as well as being an adviser to There was an interesting question that was raised in the Prime Minister on policy. I am concerned that this your last session with Lord Turnbull and Lord Wilson gap might open up and we might see a situation where about where he will sit. I know that does sound very the Cabinet Secretary is seen only as the Prime Yes Minister but it is actually quite important. If he is Minister’s man in the Civil Service and not the civil covering the Cabinet as a whole, he will occupy the servants’ man in the Prime Minister’s Office. offices of the Cabinet Secretary in 70 Whitehall, Sue Cameron: I think that is absolutely right and that which Michael Heseltine was prevented from is what will happen under the new arrangements. If occupying in 1995, rather than staying in Number 10. you are the Cabinet Secretary, you are just with the That is quite a symbolic thing, and, come 1 January, Prime Minister a huge amount, and if you are in some everyone in Whitehall will be watching which side he other Department, or even in the Cabinet Office— uses. It is no longer a green baize door; it is rather which is physically very close—you are just not going like where you come into Portcullis House with a to have the same access to the Prime Minister or the swipe card. That is crucial and when you see him, same opportunities to mention a Civil Service matter. which I am sure you will, that is a very important For example, after you have discussed a crisis going question to ask him, because that will determine how on in some other area, you have an opportunity to say, much he is the Prime Minister’s man as opposed to “By the way, what do you think about this?” If you the Cabinet as a whole. I am not disagreeing with have the Head of the Civil Service coming in to what either David or Sue said on the drive for reform, discuss an issue, somebody has to arrange a meeting; but those issues are quite important. it is going to take at least 20 minutes; they will have Sue Cameron: My understanding is that he is going to come from their Department; and the Prime to sit in both places. I am told he is definitely going Minister is going to say, “Do I have to do this? Isn’t to have the traditional Sir Humphrey office, but he this a bit boring? There are more important things to will also have a place in Number 10 and he will be do.” They just will not have the same access and spending quite a lot of time over there. So it will be therefore the same influence. physically split as well as a split job. It is obvious that Jeremy Heywood is, to a large extent, going to be the gatekeeper when it comes to Q245 Kelvin Hopkins: Following up on that: we talk access to the Prime Minister. As he is not the Head of a lot about Sir Humphrey and how life has imitated the Home Civil Service and the Prime Minister’s time art in that respect, but I remember in the series there is very valuable, he is not necessarily going to want were lots of occasions when Sir Humphrey was to call in the Head of the Home Civil Service at every opportunity. having lunch in his club with a Permanent Secretary David Walker: In a sense the picture is worse than and they were fixing things behind the scenes. That you have painted. It seems what we are going to have kind of relationship is important if you are running is that Cabinet Secretary’s role, which you have the Civil Service and if you are Cabinet Secretary as characterised as close in, would handle the Liam Fox well. That relationship would seem unlikely to happen affair and do politics quite well, and a cipher Head of under the new regime. the Civil Service who will be a departmental Peter Riddell: I think it will continue to happen. Permanent Secretary necessarily preoccupied by their Jeremy Heywood has been the fixer; if you have a Department. That will be the case even if they are problem anywhere in Whitehall at a serious level he from the Department for Communities and Local sorts it out. It does not matter who the Prime Minister Government, which actually has an agenda, and the has been or what Jeremy Heywood’s job title has Government may have interesting things to say about been; he has been the fixer. That involves having housing that the Permanent Secretary of the relationships with the other Permanent Secretaries. He Department should be concentrating on. Then you is not a distant figure from them at present, I assure have a whole class of issues to do with the Civil you, and he will certainly not be in future. He is a Service and the public service at large, for which it very shrewd guy and he has been around a long time, seems nobody will be proffering leadership and so I do not think he will do that. management: the capacity of the civil servants; their David Walker: I would briefly take issue with the professional identity; their ability to service the phrase “running the Civil Service”. It is bad enough present Government; and their ability to bring in now, but under the new arrangements nobody will be revenue. These are large questions that somebody running the Civil Service. should be paying attention to at the centre. Peter Riddell: I have one disagreement with you, Mr Q246 Chair: Except these days they would meet in Hopkins. I think the Special Adviser comparison is Pizza Express in Victoria Street, wouldn’t they? Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 43
15 November 2011 Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker
Peter Riddell: The key meetings used to be in Somebody should, but if she were Head of the Civil Churchills café during the Brown-Blair era. Service it would rule that out.
Q247 Alun Cairns: We have partly covered this Q250 Chair: Lord Butler suggested that it would be already, but would a more effective arrangement be to the Cabinet Secretary. combine the roles of Head of the Civil Service and Peter Riddell: Another consequence is that within the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office, and what Department, whichever Department it is, we will find would be the advantages and disadvantages of such a Director General in practice taking on a lot of the an arrangement? I think we have partly spoken with Permanent Secretary’s roles, just because of time. Mr Riddell about this, but, Ms Cameron and Mr There is no doubt about that whatsoever; there is an Walker, what do you think? obverse to that too. Sue Cameron: I think there is some merit in doing that, and it would be much better than having the Q251 Greg Mulholland: We have largely covered Permanent Secretary at the Home Office or the the time commitment issue and some of the questions Permanent Secretary at the Department for arising from that. Very simply, do you think that the Communities and Local Government doing it. I do way the Head of the Civil Service post is being think there is a real risk that, even though you are combined, and the job description has no sense of physically close to the centre of power, the Civil what the time commitment should be on some of the Service would suffer a downgrade in much the same challenges you have mentioned, means that particular way. Even if it is only titular, and the Cabinet part of the role was set up to not function effectively? Secretary is only the titular Head of the Civil Service Peter Riddell: I think it is one that will not last very and all the work is done in the Cabinet Office—which long. I agree with the earlier witnesses; what you will it is anyway—it would be a pity if the extra drive, find in the course of the next couple of years—and prestige and status that come from having the Cabinet these things always happen quicker than one Secretary holding both posts were lost. expects—is that it will not be sustainable. I am sure David Walker: I think it would be a very interesting people can make it work because personalities always experiment, concerned with what happens in large can; if it is any of the likely people, I am sure they organisations in the non-profit and profit sectors, to can make it work, but over time people will say, “Hold have a Chief Operating Officer or somebody on, there are holes here and we have to sort it out.” responsible for the running of the machine. People say We will have an announcement by the end of the that we tried that with the Civil Service Department Parliament saying that the Head of the Civil Service but that died a death in 1981, since when there has is now going to be based in the Cabinet Office. been a large increase in the general capacity of Civil David Walker: The answer has to be ad hominem, and Service management. Thinking has moved on, and we I am sorry about that. If the Head of the Civil Service could and should experiment with the transformation were Bob Kerslake, I am sure, because Eric Pickles of the Cabinet Office into a corporate centre for has gone off the boil, he would have the time to spend Whitehall headed by a potent civil servant, who would glad-handing, meeting staff and doing the important work out a division of labour with the Cabinet symbolic aspects of the role. However, if it were Secretary. Helen Ghosh, it is hard to see how she could possibly afford to spend a moment away from her Department. Q248 Chair: Given that the Minister for the Civil So it a slightly “horses for courses” answer. Service is in the Cabinet Office, would it be Sue Cameron: One of the good reasons I have heard unreasonable to suggest that the Head of the Civil for having Bob Kerslake is that he might have a bit Service, even if he or she is the Permanent Secretary more time and that is a plus point. in another Department, should have an office— I know you were talking in your report about having perhaps the office—in the Cabinet Office? somebody manage the Civil Service. Over the past Sue Cameron: I just do not think that is real. I do not few years one should not underestimate some of the see how somebody from another Department is going improvements that have been made with the existing to have the time. Of course you can give them an machinery, partly because Gus has driven it, but office there, but how often are they going to use it? things like the capability reviews, improving the How are they going to find the time to really be there? professionalism of the Civil Service, more financial people and so on. Even under this Government, Q249 Chair: They should be there for two days a Francis Maude has been trying to up-skill the Civil week. Service when it comes to project management, which Sue Cameron: If you are the Permanent Secretary at they have never been very good at. I think quite a lot the Home Office and your Secretary of State is deeply can be done in an incremental way, particularly if you in the doo-doo, what do you say? “I am terribly sorry, have somebody at the top driving it properly. Home Secretary; it is my Civil Service day and I am in the Cabinet Office today”? Q252 Greg Mulholland: Can I just pick up on that David Walker: It is even worse than that. In that point, David, which I thought was very interesting? instance, Helen Ghosh may have issues with her Are you effectively saying that Helen Ghosh would management of arm’s-length agencies in the not really be a suitable candidate—not personally or Department. Who in the system is going to be capable in terms of her skills, but because her Department and of taking a strategic view about that Department’s her responsibilities would make it unrealistic for her capacity to handle arm’s-length government? to do the role? Do you think that is fair or do you Ev 44 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
15 November 2011 Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker think it automatically necessitates that it will be that people who you might have thought of as very someone from a smaller Department and a experienced quite consciously made it known that Department that is not embroiled in a lot of day-to- they were not applying. day issues and controversies? That has very worrying David Walker: You could do a notional matrix implications from an HR perspective for those senior exercise looking at the job, Departments, Permanent people in the Civil Service. Secretaries, existing workloads and making some David Walker: In your previous session people were assumptions about how those workloads might slightly dismissive of the clerical workers out there in change, and you would end up with a small number the great factories; they are very important, and they of cells whose occupants you could potentially make do need a sense of leadership and belonging. As long Head of the Civil Service. My tip—and naming a as we have a unified Civil Service, the person who is name is unfair and she was probably never the titular Head of the Civil Service has to spend time interested—was the Permanent Secretary of the talking to them, showing them there is an embodiment Department for Transport. That is because it is not a of that unity. That requires time. Maybe two days a big Department—there is not a huge amount of week is a practical way of dividing that, but the management to be done because it is small; there is question is: which Permanent Secretary can afford two quite a lot of policy with the policy load carried by days a week? I think the answer is very few of them, the Directors General. So Lin Homer, partly because and the answer should be very few of them if they are of her own administrative background, would look doing their jobs properly. potentially like someone who could do the hand Peter Riddell: It has only worked with Gus shaking, the ribbon cutting, and all those bits of the O’Donnell, who has done a lot of that, because quite job that are necessary but take a bit of time out of a lot of policy work has been done by Jeremy London. Heywood and, more recently, Peter Ricketts doing the national security work. Gus O’Donnell has been able Q255 Greg Mulholland: The evidence of the to do it because he has shed responsibilities in other recruitment process shows that, when the Prime areas. Minister said “It is perfectly possible to combine that Sue Cameron: But because he has both jobs, he has job with being a Permanent Secretary”, it actually had the clout to be able to do all these other bits of clearly is not the case. The Prime Minister should the Head of the Civil Service job, like improving have said it is perfectly possible to combine the job standards, driving reform, and also rallying the troops, with being a Permanent Secretary, but only in some which, as Peter says, Gus has done very well and has Departments. spent a lot of time doing. It seems to me, and to other David Walker: Yes, and it would need a thorough people in Whitehall that I have talked to, that with the piece of research to determine which. best will in the world it is utterly unrealistic to expect Sue Cameron: That does seem a rather bad basis: to somebody like Helen Ghosh to do it. Even most of say your field is only going to be the people who can the other Permanent Secretaries would be really hard- possibly find the time, although no doubt some of pushed to do it. them would do it well.
Q253 Greg Mulholland: If some of the people who Q256 Lindsay Roy: You have spoken about clearly are eligible to apply for a position, some of the beneficial change in reform within the Civil Service. most talented Permanent Secretaries, were going to What evidence do you have that it has been ad hoc or go through this odd recruitment process and give a systematic? Are there instances of ad hoc-ery or have description as to how they could fulfil the role, then there been systematic approaches across the board? actually what they would be saying is that they did David Walker: Sue and I may differ on this point. not feel they could fulfil the role because it is not When the present Head of the Civil Service came into realistic alongside what they are doing. So basically office, he did have an organised plan embodied by the some of our most talented people, if they are going to capability reviews. Perhaps inevitably he got be honest, will say that, because of the way this is distracted, they ran out of steam and what had begun being done, they could not actually do it. as an admirable push to transform skill sets and Peter Riddell: The proof there is quite clear: they did attitudes lost its momentum. So I think ad hocery then not apply. There were some very senior Permanent became a characteristic of the job. You get distracted Secretaries who made it very clearly known that they by events and it is very hard, given the duality of the would not apply for the job because they did not role in management and policy advice, to focus on regard it as satisfactory in relation to their one thing that desperately needed to be done, which Departments. was management change. Peter Riddell: I would add that it is partly because Q254 Greg Mulholland: So we may not get the best you had a change of Government to one with a person as Head of the Civil Service. different approach, which had a bit impact on that, Peter Riddell: All I am saying is that the field was naturally. In some areas there have been some very narrower than you might have thought, given the big changes. As Sue quite rightly said, HR is taken nature of the post. Some decided they would prefer to much more seriously, and financial controls are an stay where they are and doing what they are; I have issue of Government. We had a session before the struck this in conversation. That is not to say that election with the chief financial people, virtually all whoever ends up with this may not be very good, and of whom had come into the Civil Service in the we will see who it is very shortly, but it is interesting previous two or three years, often from other bits of Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 45
15 November 2011 Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker the public sector. A lot of that has carried through. I Q259 Paul Flynn: You all mentioned the pre- would not necessarily describe it as ad hoc-ery, but appointment system in your written evidence or your you have a totally different approach from the current evidence this morning: how do you think it is going? Government to a lot of this and also a sharp reduction It is in its infancy; it was proposed by this Committee in numbers. So I would not underrate some of the after looking at what was happening in the United beneficial changes there have been, but it has been in States, and we wanted pre-appointment hearings for a a totally different environment. limited number of jobs. Reflecting what has happened, Chair: I have an oral question at 11.30, so we will particularly with the Head of the UK Statistics either have to finish or Mr Hopkins will take the chair Authority, do you think it is working and there is room if we need to continue. We will go to Mr Roy, or are for expanding it to other areas, or is it not working? you done? Peter Riddell: I think the range of posts the Select Lindsay Roy: I think we have covered my point. Committee is looking at is slightly haphazard. I know the Liaison Committee is doing some very good work Q257 Chair: Do you think there is a case for some on that and trying to rationalise it. The key thing is kind of pre-appointment scrutiny for the role of the that you should be at the earlier stage, which did serve Head of the Civil Service? Do you think Parliament for the UK Statistics Authority, in looking at the job should be involved in that appointment or indeed in spec. That is the stage you should be at, and then have the Cabinet Secretary’s appointment? the pre-appointment hearing. Clearly in this case there Peter Riddell: I think Parliament should have been was a mismatch of the two in the first appointment. involved in discussing the process but not the David Walker: I think we are seeing that the appointment. It would have been desirable if, when constitution is—bless the constitution—fungible, and the job specs were being drawn up, Parliament or the you are making strides to change it. I can only Committee were consulted on it. I think the actual encourage you, if I may, without wishing to patronise appointment should be done under the Civil Service Members of Parliament, to push on this boundary. Commissioner’s role. Then you should have hearings This is very interesting territory and there is a lot with the three new people as soon as possible. further to go. Sue Cameron: I agree; I think there is a lot further Q258 Chair: The Prime Minister might well argue, to go. I did not think that you should be having a and reasonably, that this is the way he wants to run pre-appointment hearing for candidates for the his Government. Cabinet Secretary job, but I think there is a lot further David Walker: But it is not his Government; it is the to go. It is a really good thing. It strengthens the Sovereign’s Government, and you are the legislators public’s sense of trust that they feel people are being who secure the revenues through Tax Bills. You have scrutinised and it is not all being done behind closed been on a roll in this Committee. If you take your doors. Personally I think one set of people you could work together with that of PAC, the Home Affairs do pre-appointment hearings on to everybody’s Committee and other Committees, this could have advantage is Special Advisers, SpAds. been a moment for Parliament to say, “This is a critical public appointment that we should co-own.” Q260 Paul Flynn: Could we hear your answer to the Mr Hopkins is helping us find a new Chairman of the question you posed, Ms Cameron, on Adam Werritty’s UK Statistics Authority; this is a far bigger job. I am situation? Who should look at breaches in the sure you or a member of your Committee should even Ministerial Code in future? have been on the appointments panel to bring a Chair: When the Ministerial Code is breached, who parliamentary perspective to bear. Short of that, should advise the Prime Minister whether it should be certainly some scope to vet the candidates is surely referred to Sir Philip Mawer? within the purview of Parliament. Peter Riddell: The key word is “advise”, because it is Sue Cameron: I have to say that I disagree. I think the Prime Minister’s decision. civil servants are ultimately there to serve Ministers, Sue Cameron: That is true. and it is ultimately up to them to decide whom they Peter Riddell: The Prime Minister chooses who he want and how they organise it. As Peter said, if your has as Ministers and it is Secretary of States’ decisions Committee had looked at how the appointment was whom they have as Special Advisers, although going to be made and what sort of job spec there was obviously the Prime Minister has a role. It is a puzzle going to be, a lot of this mess and muddle might have to me, and you would have to ask Gus O’Donnell, been avoided, because people would have recognised why Philip Mawer was not involved in investigating it at an earlier stage and maybe the Prime Minister the Adam Werritty affair; I do not know the answer would have thought differently. Assuming the to that. Cabinet Secretaries can only provide factual appointments are made—some Whitehall people have advice; it is a political decision and for politicians to asked whether it will really happen—I think you take. should speak to them as soon as possible. Sue Cameron: I do not know if it was Robin Butler, Peter Riddell: If you are actually involved in the Richard Wilson or Gus O’Donnell who put it in, but appointment panel, and I disagree with David on this, it actually says that it should not be the Cabinet you become part of the ownership of the people doing Secretary, the Permanent Secretary or other civil it. In order to hold them to account I am not sure you servant who enforces the code. They were trying to should be part of appointing individuals, but I think climb out of it. I think the reason they did not use you should be involved in consultation on the process. Philip Mawer was a political one; there was this huge There is a distinction there. row going on, and he might be a very good guy but Ev 46 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
15 November 2011 Sue Cameron, Rt Hon Peter Riddell and David Walker
Sir Philip Mawer could have taken for ever, in their Sue Cameron: The division of the jobs? Yes, terms, to decide on this, and they wanted it fixed by absolutely. It is an extremely messy compromise. the end of the week. Therefore Gus was brought in. Chair: I am afraid I must draw it to a close, but thank you very much indeed for your evidence. There is a Q261 Paul Flynn: Do you still see this as a messy lot of material for us to draw on there, and we are compromise, which is not going to help the smooth most grateful to you. running of Government? Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 47
Wednesday 23 November 2011
Members present: Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair)
Alun Cairns Kelvin Hopkins Paul Flynn Greg Mulholland Robert Halfon Lindsay Roy David Heyes ______
Examination of Witness
Witness: Sir Gus O'Donnell GCB, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, gave evidence.
Q262 Chair: Sir Gus, it is a great pleasure to survey figures, which we do every year. I am pleased welcome you and formally to congratulate you on to say that despite all the changes—the pay freeze, your impending retirement after a very illustrious the recruitment freeze and the prospective changes to career in Whitehall. I invite you to put on the record pensions—the overall engagement score is some parting thoughts, maybe to take your revenge on unchanged. That is quite an achievement. The Civil one or two old allies, but also to leave any important Service remains very interested and challenged by advice for your successors and the Government. their work—the scores there are exceptionally high in You were very clear in your opposition to splitting the comparison with other places—and their work gives role of the Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil them a sense of personal accomplishment. Not Service quite recently, in 2009. In the light of what surprisingly, they are less happy about their pay and the Prime Minister has decided to do, what were your benefits. principal concerns that you raised with him, and how My final point is to put on record my thanks to civil have they been addressed? servants up and down the country and overseas for the Sir Gus O'Donnell: May I respond to your first point great job they have done. Of course we can improve, with a brief opening statement, and then come to the and I am sure that my successors will be able to build question? on what I believe are very sound foundations. Chair: You certainly may. Sir Gus O'Donnell: Thank you, Mr Chairman. As this Q263 Chair: Thank you for your kind words. You may be my last appearance before the House, may I are tempting me to pick up on two matters that you put on record my thanks to the Committee, and to the have raised. The formation of the coalition was based previous Committee under Tony Wright, for the on, if nothing else, the credibility of the deficit support given to me as Cabinet Secretary and Head of reduction programme. The Prime Minister himself is the Civil Service in terms of working on improving now admitting that this is proving much more the governance of the country, and the support you intractable than we feared. What advice do you have have given for the impartiality of the Civil Service, for the Government in these circumstances? which we should never underestimate? Having Sir Gus O'Donnell: We are just ahead of the Autumn parliamentary support for that is massively important. Statement. It is very clear to me, in our present I am proud to be leaving behind a Civil Service that circumstances with what is happening in the eurozone, continues to demonstrate its core values—honesty, that having a credible deficit reduction plan and integrity, impartiality, objectivity—most recently in sticking to it is massively important. supporting the first coalition Government since the war. It is a much more diverse, capable and Q264 Chair: Given that the euro and the burden of professional Civil Service than I joined 32 years ago. European regulation is one of the constraints on In addition to the challenges of operating with a growth, is not that bringing this whole issue to a coalition Government, the Civil Service is having to crunch in terms of how we are engaged with a play its part in the deficit reduction plan. Over the last European Union that is becoming very different in year, the Civil Service has shrunk considerably and is its character? now at its smallest number since the Second World Sir Gus O'Donnell: You kindly asked me to look War. These reductions have been mostly achieved backwards. If I do so, obviously I cannot take any voluntarily. Mr Flynn, you will be interested to know credit for policy decisions made by Ministers—that that the reductions in the senior Civil Service are would be inappropriate—but if I think of the best substantially more in percentage terms than the piece of evidence-based work we did to advise a reductions in the non-senior Civil Service, so it has Minister on a policy, it was the five tests on the euro, been weighted towards the top. which resulted in Ministers making the decision not In addition to the recruitment and pay freezes, there to join. I sleep much more happily in my bed at night will be changes to pensions, and in these knowing that, although we are facing this crisis, we circumstances, the future Head of the Civil Service— have the advantage of an exchange rate and choosing in terms of what you were saying about advice for the our own interest rates. That is quite important. future—will need to work hard to ensure that all the staff remain engaged and motivated. Later today, we Q265 Chair: Without tempting you to explain what are releasing the benchmark Civil Service people policy options you might be exploring, would it be Ev 48 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB fair to say that policy on the question of how we Secretary role a bigger role, because the Cabinet engage with the European Union is in a greater state Secretary now has to deal not only with a Prime of flux today than at any time in your career? Minister and a Cabinet, but with a Prime Minister, a Sir Gus O'Donnell: I have been through times when Deputy Prime Minister and a Cabinet. There are a lot the whole engagement question has been considered. more coalition committees, so there is a bigger role Maastricht would be an example of when the for the Cabinet Secretary. Government of the day were really focused on In terms of the Head of the Civil Service, as I have ensuring an opt-out from monetary union—if we had said, we are in very, very tough times for the Civil not done that, we would have been forced in—as well Service; some tough decisions have to be made and as opt-outs from the social chapter and the like. There are being made, and the numbers are changing. More were some very big issues there. than ever, it is important for there to be a visible Head I think some really serious issues will arise as the euro of the Civil Service out there in the country explaining area countries attempt to put right some of the the changes. We also have a very big efficiency institutional problems in the way they set up the euro. agenda—as you know, Ian Watmore is doing an It was clear—I said this at the time—that having a excellent job. The Cabinet Office has changed quite single currency with multiple fiscal policies and not fundamentally, before the election and post-election. having fiscal rules that people will adhere to can We have now brought into the Cabinet Office the create serious problems for a single currency. As the Office of Government Commerce, Buying Solutions, euro area attempts to address those questions, the Directgov, and areas such as COI and NSG, which Prime Minister has made it clear that if that were to involve any questions about treaty change, there are changing radically; and Constitutional Affairs has would be some real issues for the UK. come across from the Ministry of Justice into the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office has changed Q266 Chair: A two-tier Europe is now inevitable. quite radically. Sir Gus O'Donnell: In a sense, because there has been the euro area and the non-euro area, and Schengen Q269 Chair: It sounds almost as though, if you were and non-Schengen, there have been differences staying on, you would split it. already. Sir Gus O'Donnell: If I were staying on, the one thing I will be absolutely clear about is that I would have Q267 Chair: On the question of engagement in the made Ian Watmore Permanent Secretary of the Civil Service, you take pleasure and credit from the Cabinet Office. The question of splitting is an fact that levels of engagement from Civil Service interesting one. Certainly, both aspects have got staff, the sense of being involved, has not declined; bigger. I think that the difference between me doing it but there are dramatic variations between different and someone new is that someone who has been doing departments and agencies—for example, the DVLA is the job for over six years might possibly be able to do doing very much better than the UK Border Agency them together. I think that the split as envisaged can, or HMRC—and even the best Departments, such as given the circumstances, work very well. DFID, are still at the bottom of the range of the best private sector organisations. There is a long way to Q270 Chair: Do you not think there is a danger that go, is there not? a future Prime Minister might feel that the Cabinet Sir Gus O'Donnell: There is a long way to go, but if Secretary has become more his own creature than the you look at private sector organisations, you will find independent Head of the Civil Service who is Cabinet a lot that are a lot worse than DFID, as well; DFID is Secretary at the moment? way above average for the private sector. You are Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. You mentioned the Prime right, though. One of the great advantages of now Minister, and I think it is very important that the having the same survey across the whole Civil Service Cabinet Secretary understands that they work for the is that we are able to compare. Some are fantastic; Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the they tend to be the smaller agencies, where people coalition, and that they have to make the coalition find it easier to identify with the management, the work. board and the like. Those institutions are doing very well. We just need to learn from the best and spread that across the rest—you are absolutely right. It is a Q271 Chair: So after the end of the coalition, this work in progress, there is no question about that. arrangement might well end? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, I think this pattern is right Q268 Chair: Thank you. Will you explain your for this Parliament and through this Parliament. What concern about splitting the role? happens thereafter is an interesting question. If you Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. As you say, that was made move back to single-party Government, it is quite pre-election. Post-election, we are in very different possible. Obviously the Government will be whatever circumstances. There are two things that I would point they will be—I must not make any value statements to: first, this is the first coalition Government since the about that—but if we were into a situation of Second World War, and secondly there is now a deficit sustainable public finances and not in the big deficit reduction plan. The previous Government intended to reduction programme, I would say that that weight halve the deficit in four years, but the coalition made a would diminish somewhat and I can imagine a clear commitment to move further and faster on deficit circumstance where it would be right to have one reduction. What that does is make the Cabinet person doing both. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 49
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
Q272 Alun Cairns: Your predecessor, Lord Turnbull, “Here is someone who actually knows about delivery described the new structure as “a messy solution”, at the local level. He’s got an excellent background in Professor Colin Talbot called it “a very strange wiring delivery.” They will see him as embodying the policy diagram” and Lord Hennessy said that the costs of the and delivery coming together. Those synergies, I changes in “confusion terms are very high.” Are the think, will be important round the country. lines of accountability and responsibility clear? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. You have been given a chart Q275 Alun Cairns: Do you accept that in some of that shows the lines of accountability. I think they are the evidence we have heard, there could be the risk of very clear. a conflict of credibility, or even conflict of interest, if the Government have a major drive in a certain policy Q273 Alun Cairns: Do you not recognise the area—be it to improve the tendering times or anything comments that have been made by the experienced like that—and the Head of the Civil Service is people I have quoted? responsible for a Department that is pretty weak in Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do recognise them. Having lived that area? Do you not think that the other Permanent through previous regimes where you are working with Secretaries in the other Departments could say, “Well, a single party—all my predecessors worked with a if the Head of the Civil Service can’t deliver it, why single party; they had that advantage—I am in a world should we?” where we are dealing with a coalition. It is different. Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, at the moment we have a I would not use the word “messy” but I would say it part-time Head of the Civil Service in me. I also do is slightly more complex. Obviously, we are dealing other things like Cabinet Secretary. There are certain with two parties in government. We are dealing with things the Cabinet Office does not deliver perfectly, I a situation where at some point in the future, as we am embarrassed to say. We live with that at the approach the next election, those parties might want moment. to differentiate their product somewhat, as it were. I think it is more complex for the Cabinet Secretary Q276 Chair: Can you just explain one thing? In your role. I think the specifics of deficit reduction mean that wiring diagram, you have “Permanent Secretaries:- the Head of the Civil Service role is more important as Service” reporting to the Head of the Civil Service, well. and “Permanent Secretaries:- Cross Cutting” reporting to the Cabinet Secretary. What does that mean? Q274 Alun Cairns: The interpretation given by Sir Gus O'Donnell: For the Cabinet Secretary, it’s many is that the Head of the Civil Service role has people who do things which go across departmental been downgraded as a result of the change and that it boundaries. Let me give some examples: the Chief will be an also ran at every stage because the clear Scientist; the National Statistician; the Treasury, influence will lie with the Cabinet Secretary. Do you which operates across boundaries. Those sorts of areas accept that? will be very much in the scope of the Cabinet Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I don’t accept that. Let me Secretary, who will line-manage those. The big explain. Under the arrangements that Bob and Jeremy delivery Departments—MOD, DWP and the like— are putting place, they will have offices right next to will be in the area of the Head of the Civil Service. each other. The enormous advantage that I have is that But they will operate as a team. One thing they are I am 50 paces away from either the Prime Minister or responding to, which I do very much understand, is the Deputy Prime Minister. So they will work very that I have 36 direct reports, and I don’t think any closely together as a team. Secondly, I think it is a textbook would say that that’s a very sensible way to great advantage, which is underplayed, to have a Head run things. That’s too many, and I think this is a way of the Civil Service who understands what it is like to of them allocating out some of the direct reports be running a Department as well. A lot of the changes between them. we are making are mandatory changes from the centre. The pay freeze goes across all Departments. Understanding what it is like to run a Department— Q277 Chair: But this is a division between policy actually to be delivering, say, on the localism agenda: and delivery? an agenda that will be close to the heart of both the Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, absolutely not. You had some Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, and that people giving you evidence— they will want to talk about independently anyway— Chair: Predecessors of yours, I think. will ensure that Bob Kerslake actually gets good Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I was thinking more of the access to both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime academics, actually. They were trying to have this Minister and will be influential. demarcation between policy and delivery, which they In the old days those Heads of Civil Service were saw very bluntly. I do not see it that way. I think based in the centre. They didn’t have a Department to Jeremy will spend his time—or I would have been talk about and they were involved in terms and spending my time for the next few years—on the conditions of Civil Service, and the like. It is harder implementation or delivery of the policy reforms that to get prime ministerial or deputy prime ministerial have been announced already. That is the big job. So attention for those sorts of things. I think Bob Jeremy’s job will be about implementation, I would Kerslake, who is at the heart of managing the localism say, in the next few years. There are lots of reforms. agenda, will be able to do that and in addition there Take the welfare reform, making universal credit work will be the synergy that when he goes round the will be a massive implementation issue, and I would country, civil servants will be able to look up and say, be very surprised if the Prime Minister is not having Ev 50 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB lots of meetings to check what is happening on Q280 Robert Halfon: Do you not think there is an implementation. air of Sir Humphrey about the opposition to the changes from the grandees and elements of the Civil Q278 Chair: But then the Head of the Civil Service Service? is doing what? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I could be called a Sir Humphrey. Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Head of the Civil Service The point I would make about all of my predecessors will be there to be visible around the country. They is that, whatever I have done to bring on the Civil will be checking on how it is going on the front line— Service, I have done it building on the foundations like I say, these two will operate as a team—and they left me. I think we all try to do that and respond coming back to say, “Look, you think you’re done on to the different circumstances of the day. the Work programme? Well, here is what it looks like I think we gave you the paper on history. There is as on the front line in Sheffield. These are the things I much history of the roles being split as there is of them being together. So I have always assumed that would like to feed back to you, and these are the when circumstances change, you think about changing things we should check in implementation.” So I think the solutions to those new circumstances and design they will come together. the best possible solutions to the problems of the day. The point about the academics is that they seem to That is what is happening here. think there is a world where Permanent Secretaries in the past somehow had lots of delivery experience that Q281 Robert Halfon: So you would disagree with they do not have now—the whole “Next Steps” stuff. those who have come to the Committee and suggested I was trying to look back to find those people who the opposite? had been Heads of Agency and who had become Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, I can understand where Permanent Secretaries—and blank, blank, blank, they come from. All I am saying is that I think, under blank. I think we got to Michael Bichard. During my the circumstances we have today, which I hope are period, Leigh Lewis, Head of Jobcentre Plus; Lin unique, historic and, in terms of the deficit, ones that Homer, Head of the Border Agency; Lesley Strathie, we won’t get to again, this is a very good solution to Head of agency; and Bob Kerslake, Head of those particular problems. I have said already that, in Agency—all Permanent Secretaries. He did not really future circumstances where those things do not work, get it, but we have, because of the initiative of my you may well move back to a combined role. illustrious predecessor, Andrew Turnbull, the professional skills for Government stuff. We have Q282 Robert Halfon: Can I just ask you to comment been building in this delivery stuff, and we have been on what Douglas Wass said in a memorandum to the looking for a wider pattern of experience, which is Committee? “The Head of the Civil Service is now why, when you look at our Permanent Secretaries, largely superfluous, and could be dropped without any more than a third of them have been in senior roles loss to the effectiveness to which the civil service is either in the private sector or in the wider public managed, either in the terms of the formulation of the sector. Again, that is a big change from where it was rules or their implementation. The service is now in those previous days. more federal in its practice and the constituent parts Chair: That is very interesting. of the federation operate in their own way and according to their own requirements, much more so Q279 Robert Halfon: A succession of former than was at one time. Other parts of the public service grandees have come in saying that the proposed operate in a similarly federal way. Police and fire changes are a terrible idea. What do you think of what services are both federal and operate subject to the Prime Minister said about civil servants general control from the Home Office and their local representing the best trade union lobby in the world police and fire authorities—neither has a national and that this is just a case of Sir Humphrey protecting head.” What is your view about that? vested interests? Sir Gus O'Donnell: In one sense, it is absolutely right Sir Gus O'Donnell: I was not aware that the Prime about being federal. There are various things that were Minister had said that. delegated down to Departments in terms of certain terms and conditions. That pendulum is swinging Robert Halfon: I think he said it to the Liaison back, I would say, with some of the changes we have Committee. had and the controls imposed from the centre. What Chair: I spoke to him about your predecessors. it underestimates—and, I suppose, what I have felt I Sir Gus O'Donnell: Oh right, yes. brought to the Head of the Civil Service role—was Robert Halfon: In response to a number of grandees that ability to get out and learn from what is coming in and saying that it is such a terrible idea to happening in the front line. That involves going to make these changes. talk to people in the UK Border Agency about how Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Prime Minister is responding they are managing Olympic security, which I was to what he sees as the challenges of the day. I have doing earlier this week; talking to people about how made it clear that I think this is a system that can work the new National Crime Agency might be put together very well. Given that we are in circumstances that and what challenges they have; talking to people none of my predecessors had to deal with—they did about the Work programme; going out there, talking not deal with coalition Governments, and they were to civil servants from a whole range of different very fortunate not to have an 11% deficit-to-GDP Departments and learning the things they think are ratio—dealing with these things is quite important. working and the things they do not think are working. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 51
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
It also involves being a visible head. They have financial sector, and as it turned out for the financial questions about the changes to pensions, for example, crash, that was massively important. We did not have and the truth is that the language we were using— a national security adviser in those days, so all of the explaining to them about career averaging, about agency heads were reporting to me. I was covering all defined benefit versus defined contributions—to be of the intelligence work as well. I felt that we lacked honest, we were not using very clear language. I do a bit on the policy area in No. 10. I know Jeremy very not think it was well understood. As a very visible well, and I thought that Jeremy would be excellent on Head of the Civil Service, you can do all those things. that. He is someone who has gained the trust and I am not sure in Douglas Wass’s day that they did that respect, as I have said, of Prime Ministers and as much. Chancellors of different parties. He did that very well. Now, we revert to this new thing, where we will have Q283 Robert Halfon: Aren’t you describing the a Cabinet Secretary who has a national security Head of the Civil Service, in essence, as a beefed-up adviser alongside them, to take the weight off on the head of human resources in the Civil Service? intelligence side and issues like Libya. We can revert Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, it is more than that, because back to the Prime Minister having a Principal Private you are not just talking about things like terms and Secretary. conditions; you are going out there to actually talk to them about the implementation of real policy changes, Q289 Robert Halfon: Who does the Principal and you are working out what is working and what is Private Secretary answer to? Would that be the not. You are also going out there to talk to them about things like values, and absorbing the issues they have Cabinet Secretary? got. You hear from them the things that are Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes, as it always has been in the disturbing them. past. What makes that work better is that the Cabinet Secretary now has to look to the Prime Minister and Q284 Robert Halfon: Did you actually consider the Deputy Prime Minister. combining the roles of the Head of the Civil Service and the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office? Q290 Chair: Just looking at the chart, the Head of Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes, but for the reason that I said the Civil Service could very easily be the Permanent before, I talked to Ian Watmore about this, and Ian Secretary in the Cabinet Office, depending on the was very clear that he believed that his job, in terms personalities and their experience. Do you agree? of doing the efficiency and reform agenda with all of Sir Gus O'Donnell: It could be; absolutely. We the new things that have come in—he has just taken certainly did not rule it out from the start, it was just in the property unit, and he is doing a fabulous job on that Ian decided that he did not want to go for it. delivering efficiency savings—was a big enough post, Chair: A brief supplementary, Mr Roy. which is why he did not put in for the job. He wants to work with Bob Kerslake on Civil Service reform Q291 Lindsay Roy: Sir Gus, you spoke eloquently and deliver that together as part of the team. about the professionalism of the Civil Service, their role in policy development, their commitment, their Q285 Robert Halfon: Final question: is it right that, flexibility and their engagement. You have mentioned as I understand it, they are getting rid of the Downing controls as well. You will be aware that recently the Street Permanent Secretary and merging that with the Prime Minister described civil servants as “enemies new Cabinet Secretary? of enterprise”. Is that something that resonates Sir Gus O'Donnell: Not merging it with the new strongly with you? Cabinet Secretary; what we will do is to revert to a Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. We have had some much more traditional role where the person in No. 10 interesting discussions about that. will be a Principal Private Secretary, not a Permanent Secretary of Downing Street. Q292 Lindsay Roy: Interesting is a neutral word. Q286 Robert Halfon: But the Cabinet person will be Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, what I wanted to do was to responsible for Downing Street, will they not? prove to him that that was not true. In particular, we Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Cabinet Secretary has always have been working on the red tape challenge. I chaired been responsible for the whole of the Cabinet Office. a group on that to show him that we are absolutely Part of the Cabinet Office is No. 10. committed to trying to improve regulation and reduce it where we can. I think that that programme, working Q287 Robert Halfon: So you are downgrading the with business and using fancy techniques like crowd- seniority of the Downing Street part. sourcing, will have quite a big impact. In this world Sir Gus O'Donnell: Of the Downing Street part of it, where—coming back to what the Chair was asking yes. That is absolutely right. right at the start—the economy is in for a very difficult time, our biggest trading partner is in a terrible place, Q288 Robert Halfon: And why is that? the Bank of England Governor has his foot to the floor Sir Gus O'Donnell: Basically, it was a traditional and we have a deficit reduction plan, that is absolutely model. What I did, in response to what I regarded as right. We need to try to think about structural growth the challenges of the job I had—remember, when I reforms. The whole idea about trying to encourage brought in Jeremy Heywood from outside, he had enterprise in looking at all those structural reforms is good private sector experience, particularly in the massively important now—more important than ever. Ev 52 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
Q293 Lindsay Roy: So that is a core objective within interested in that—being civil servants and the Civil Service reform. mandarins—that is the sort of thing that does turn us Sir Gus O'Donnell: Absolutely. on, I’m afraid. I have a brilliant private office who will manage both of them, but it may well be that we Q294 Greg Mulholland: Sir Gus, in your letter to need to think about some supplementary support to Permanent Secretaries, you said that you would be Bob. I know he is thinking about that in terms of what talking through how the new arrangements will work more he might need. In this light, your Committee had in practice. You have been having that discussion at a recommendation about this. I know that Bob the Wednesday morning colleague meeting and also Kerslake is thinking quite carefully about how to take at the Top 200 meeting last week. Can you share some that forward. details of those discussions and tell us how you believe the new arrangements will work in practice? Q297 Chair: But where will his office actually be? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Certainly. In a sense, you have Has that been decided? the outcome of those discussions in the papers that we Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes, right next door to mine, sent you. When we went to the Perm Secs, both Bob where currently the National Security Adviser is. and Jeremy explained how they saw the divide of the There is an adjoining door between the two. roles and asked for comments back. They got some comments from the Perm Secs. In the light of that, we Q298 David Heyes: Does this really give the clarity had our Top 200 meeting on Thursday and Friday last the Permanent Secretaries were seeking? For example, week. On the Thursday, the Prime Minister came and a Permanent Secretary with cross-cutting discussed his objectives and where he thought the responsibilities is Sir Bob Kerslake, in terms, for Civil Service was doing well or badly. First thing on instance, of localism and the implications of universal the Friday morning, there was a session from Bob and credit. He occupies very much a cross-cutting role in Jeremy about how they would work together and what his Department. He reports to the Cabinet Secretary they saw as the issues. You have the chance there to for that part of the job, but he enjoys equal status with explain those line diagrams, the different allocations the Cabinet Secretary. Is that clarity? and who would do what. We then had a session with Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is clarity. I know you are going the Deputy Prime Minister and later with Francis to call Bob before Christmas. Every Permanent Maude. Overall, the idea was that we got the Secretary will know exactly who they are reporting comments in from, first, the Perm Secs, then the Top to. They will have specified all of those lists. 200. You should be pleased to know that you are the Everyone will have complete clarity on that. Of first recipients of the fruits of that work, which is the course, there is no perfect dividing line between two. I papers that have come before you. often contemplated how I could reduce those 36 direct reports. I never came up with an answer that said, Q295 Chair: Is that because we asked for it? “This is the A list and this is the B list.” I don’t think Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, to be honest, when I was that is right. I think this is as good an attempt as thinking about how might you split the jobs and possible to make the management workload feasible talking to the Prime Minister about it some months for both. I am not saying it is perfect. ago, I was thinking about this sort of chart. The one thought I had in my head is that this has got to work Q299 Kelvin Hopkins: Sir Gus, I have brief for the two people who are doing it. You cannot questions that won’t require long answers. How have finalise this until you know who those two are and you split your time between the responsibilities as they get together. This is the first opportunity we have Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary? We had to get it out in public. I thought this Committee have heard some answers from your predecessors who is precisely the right one to be able to see as much have come before us. detail as we have on this. Sir Gus O'Donnell: I’d say of the three roles I have, it has been 10% for the Permanent Secretary of the Q296 Greg Mulholland: We appreciate your doing Cabinet Office. Between the other two, it has varied that. Could you tell us any of the specific concerns at different times. Immediately post-coalition, as we that were raised and how you might be dealing with were setting up the Cabinet Committees and all the them? rest of it, I would say that the Cabinet Secretary role Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think the concerns are those you dominated. Once those had been set up, in the past six have raised in Committee. They wanted clarity about months or so, I would say that the majority had been who’s doing what and about the line-management as Head of the Civil Service, as we have faced issues, roles. One interesting thing was not so much what as you know, with threatened industrial action and all they would do separately but what they would do those sorts of things. together. You have that in the pack. There are certain things they need to do as a team, not just individually. Q300 Kelvin Hopkins: Your predecessors spoke of They wanted to work out what the arrangements how they delegated work to keep up with the demand would be to ensure that the Head of the Civil Service of the dual role. What aspects of each role do you had access to the Prime Minister; that there was time currently delegate? and support available. Sir Gus O'Donnell: I delegate a lot. Managing the The new Head of the Civil Service will not only have Civil Service as a whole is something I do with my an office alongside the Cabinet Secretary, but they will team of Perm Secs. I stress in all of this that you work all be supported by the one private office. They were together as a team. I am lucky in having some really Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 53
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB experienced Perm Secs such as Suma Chakrabarti which bears on their concerns and preoccupations.” close by. I have set up something called the Civil Does that count as what he said about how important Service steering board. I work with them. I work very your role was to go amongst the various Departments? closely with Simon in the Foreign Office because lots Sir Gus O'Donnell: It’s a bit of different world, isn’t of issues go across borders. We have lots of different it? I have made a point of running things like Civil groups. I have a group that looks at employment Service Live, where we get civil servants from all relations, for example. I delegate a lot of that sort of grades and all Departments together, and I talk to work. Although I chair it, I have other Permanent them. I have made a point of wanting to be very Secretaries doing a lot of the work. The senior visible and approachable by civil servants of all leadership committee is another one, where we different grades. I have the advantage that my wife together look at succession planning talent joined the Civil Service at the very lowest grade and management. I chair it, but a group of Permanent spent the last part of her career in the Civil Service. Secretaries are on it who all help. I will allocate So I do know what it is like and have had at home certain tasks: for example, Helen Ghosh has done a some very clear views about what civil servants in lot of work on talent management and sorting out our lower grades think about those at the top. It has been stars among the directors and director-generals—those very direct feedback and very useful. sorts of things. Paul Flynn: Are you still married? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. But it is challenging, and Q301 Kelvin Hopkins: A slightly more intriguing quite rightly. I think it is really important that you do question is whether Jeremy Heywood currently carries this. Well, that is just my style. I think that listening out any Cabinet Secretary duties in his post as to people and hearing their complaints is an important Permanent Secretary at 10 Downing Street? part of the job. Sir Gus O'Donnell: Any Cabinet Secretary duties? That is an interesting question. He is a policy adviser Q304 David Heyes: I’ve got the good fortune also to the Prime Minister. He certainly operates in that to serve on the Communities and Local Government sort of fixing role to try to help resolve policy Committee. You know that there is a huge agenda at differences. I suppose, in that sense, there are some the moment. We are massively busy and a lot of cross- policy issues. You should know that Jeremy and I cutting work is going on. I am going to cheat a bit happen to live very close to each other and therefore, and ask a question that I would like to ask you if you for the first half hour of every day, we speak on policy were in front of that Committee. It seems to me that issues and what is happening day by day. The 60% of a Permanent Secretary is the last thing we relationship is very close, but obviously he is sitting need at the moment; I should have thought that there in No. 10 and is therefore at the Prime Minister’s beck is a good case for 120% or 150%. How will you work and call minute by minute. So those policy issues that that out? come and go, Jeremy will deal with. When there are Sir Gus O'Donnell: You can never have enough of a bigger strategic ones or ones that cross a whole range of Departments, Jeremy will say to me quite often, good Permanent Secretary—I absolutely agree with “Look, I need you to call together the Perm Secs to that. Bob will need to sort that out. He will need to bang heads together on this particular policy issue,” work with his team to make sure that he has the right and that is what I will do. team in place to deal with the agenda. Every applicant for this job had to have their Secretary of State saying that they thought this was doable. We required that Q302 Kelvin Hopkins: Finally, the job description and the Secretary of State was very clear about it. for the Head of the Civil Service role did not require a time commitment for the successful candidate. In your view, how much time should Sir Bob Kerslake Q305 David Heyes: So if it goes wrong, it is Eric spend on Head of the Civil Service issues separate Pickles’s fault. from his job as a Permanent Secretary? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. I very much hope it will not Sir Gus O'Donnell: I would expect Bob to be go wrong, but if it does, we will need to make sure spending around two days a week—40% of his time that we put it right very quickly. on the Head of the Civil Service role. That is a rough average. There will be times when it will vary Q306 David Heyes: Can I ask you about the joint between the departmental role and the other one, but chairing of meetings under the new arrangement? broadly that is about right. Who chairs the Wednesday meetings of the Permanent Secretary? Q303 Robert Halfon: Just a quick question on what Sir Gus O'Donnell: Wednesday meeting colleagues— you said about the Head of the Civil Service role to I cannot help going back to the description that I am go amongst the Civil Service: can I just quote Douglas grateful to Peter Hennessey for showing me. They Wass at you again, just to get your view? He says: “I were known as the grey beards—which you will am sceptical whether the rank and file of the Civil understand! Service have much awareness of the HCS as a factor David Heyes: I didn’t think it was grey. in their lives. The leadership they see as relevant to Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think Bob fits the piece what they are doing is their local management, i.e. perfectly for that. I chair what we call the Wednesday their immediate superiors and the head of their morning colleagues meetings. We meet every department. The HCS is very remote from their lives Wednesday at 10. They will be jointly chaired by Bob and he is unlikely to have anything to say to them, and Jeremy in future. Ev 54 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
Q307 David Heyes: Jeremy does not chair it at the Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes, we absolutely can, and I moment? have been stressing a lot of things about having Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I chair it. common sets of policy skills, encouraging people to think about areas that go beyond the boundaries, Q308 David Heyes: How will it work? Will you have encouraging them to think about delivering two chairs in the room with higher backs than the outcomes—not, “What can I do in my Department?” rest? More seriously, will it be a matter of alternating but rather, “How can I solve a big outcome like the chairing from meeting to meeting, or will you homelessness or child poverty?” alternate by agenda item as the meeting progresses? Can you help us to understand how this strange Q313 Lindsay Roy: So, “What is my contribution arrangement of joint Chairs will work in practice? towards a specific outcome?” Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is not unusual. Let me give you Sir Gus O'Donnell: Precisely. I think, actually, the an example. Under the previous Administration, we number of policy problems that can be solved by one had a National Economic Council, which was a group Department working alone is diminishing. of Ministers. Underneath it, we had, because we were really inventive, a National Economic Council (O)— Q314 Lindsay Roy: Would you say, from the officials, which Nick Macpherson from Treasury and I evidence that you have, that that is a pervasive jointly chaired. We alternated in chairing those events. approach throughout the Civil Service now? Bob and Jeremy can sort it out whichever way they Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am trying to make it a pervasive want. They may decide to alternate, they may decide approach. I would say that it is work in progress—I to take some agenda items each. It is something that stress that. We are getting at fast-streamers as they we are used to. We do this sort of thing quite a lot, so come in and teaching them, trying to encourage them I don’t think it will be difficult. We have gone away to be more mobile between Departments so they don’t from the idea of one chair having a higher back than get that kind of fixed level. the others; we are very much a team, I cannot stress When anyone joins the senior Civil Service, they have that enough. It is primus inter pares. to go to a thing called base camp—I often call it “boot camp”—where I basically explain to them, and we Q309 Lindsay Roy: When we talk about Civil have a number of Perm Secs go and teach them about Service reform, presumably we are talking about how they should be delivering for the Government as much more than structural change. Transformational a whole, and not thinking just about their Department. change involves a change in culture, empowering My mantra has been that when you start in the Civil people and using their initiative and enterprise. Who Service you have a kind of hundred-zero-zero will be leading that change? Sir Bob Kerslake or Ian mentality—100% of your time on your specific job, Watmore? 0% of your time worrying about your Department and Sir Gus O'Donnell: Both, I hope. As the Head of the 0% of your time worrying about the whole, cross- Civil Service, Bob will be in first command of that, Government. As you go up the ranks, you need to but I hope both will do it in terms of the better-for- move into those last two columns. less agenda—the innovation. We are all facing the same issue: we have got a third cut in our Q315 Lindsay Roy: To what extent is there, to coin Departments. We are all trying to innovate and use the a good Scottish phrase, an “ayeways been” latest behavioural techniques to come up with new mentality—that “things have worked fine this way for ways of saving money and improving the quality of many a year”? Is it in the older age spectrum that services we provide. there is still this conservatism—with a small “c”? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think we are definitely in a Q310 Lindsay Roy: So Bob has ultimate world where the sorts of problems we are facing are responsibility and is top dog in relation to this? becoming harder—the wicked problems like ageing Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is right. societies. We are very much more aware that these are things that we cannot solve in a Department, and we Q311 Lindsay Roy: It is claimed that, despite are also aware that they are problems on which we various efforts, we do not have a single Government, need to work with the wider public sector. The current but 17 Government Departments. What steps would Government have also said to us, “And also be aware you advocate to your successors in removing the silo that possibly Government should not be trying to mentality, facilitating joined-up working and building solve these problems. Possibly these are things that we capacity? should be pushing back on individual responsibility, Sir Gus O'Donnell: First and foremost, while we have providing frameworks for people to make their own individual Departments there will be some boundary decisions.” issues—there will always be. There is not a Government in the world that do not have those, and Q316 Robert Halfon: If you were coming back, so I have been and seen them all. There is no solution to to speak— this other than dictatorship, which has its own issues. Sir Gus O'Donnell: I haven’t left yet! I am not sure that I would want to go down the route Robert Halfon: Would you prefer to be a Cabinet of one big area with one person in charge. Secretary or Head of the Civil Service? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I find that a really tough choice. Q312 Lindsay Roy: But surely we can facilitate If you had asked me that when I started the job, I joined-up working. would have said Cabinet Secretary. If you ask me that Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 55
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB now, I would say I probably have a small preference Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is one of the things that is for Head of the Civil Service. absolutely right, and this is quite possibly something that they wanted to do with the new team. I can Q317 Chair: Shouldn’t the Head of the Civil Service completely understand that, while you have the has- really be the senior job? been in the role, you let him shuffle off the scene and Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, they are different jobs, and then get on and develop this new agenda with the new I am quite happy for them to be on an equal basis. team. That is perfectly reasonable. They will have to work as a team; this will only work if they work together really well. Q323 Chair: So we are pushing water in the right direction. We are not pushing water uphill. Q318 Chair: Isn’t the danger that the Cabinet Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, as you say, there is a massive Secretary will have far more regular access to the Civil Service reform agenda. The whole of the Top Prime Minister and he will be top dog? 200 event was about that precise agenda. Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is undoubtedly true that I expect the Cabinet Secretary to have more frequent Q324 Chair: In our report, we wrote: “It has been access to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime widely reported that the Prime Minister’s Director of Minister than the Head of the Civil Service will. Strategy, and others at senior levels in the However, that is something that everybody is aware Government, have been exasperated by this lack of of and we need to accommodate that. progress and are apparently appalled by the ‘custom Chair: We are expecting a vote in a few minutes, in and practice’ of Whitehall and by the deadweight of which case we will pause and come back as quickly inherited policy, not least by the overbearing as we can, but let us spend the last few minutes on constraints imposed by the vast body of EU law and the question of the future of the Civil Service, and the regulation and by the direct application of the Human messages you might have for your successors. First, Rights Act. The Prime Minister himself appeared to you read our report, “Change in Government: the vent his frustration when he referred to ‘the enemies agenda for leadership”. Perhaps you can give us a bit of enterprise’ within government.” Nobody has come of feedback. Are we missing the point, or are we on back to us and said that that is completely wrong. That to something about a sense that there is a lack of co- seems to be on the money. ordination of change programmes? Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is certainly the case that there Sir Gus O'Donnell: This refers to the last question as are a number of Ministers who are very frustrated that well. It is always important for us to try and co- EU rules and regulations stop them doing things that ordinate what is happening across Departments, and they would like to do. there is a great tendency for these things to be looked at Department by Department. The change agenda that Q325 Chair: But it is not just about EU rules; it is we’ve got has some strong central elements to it, but about the inability to tackle things and to make they have tended to be on the controlling spending decisions. I have been talking to non-executive part—that you must not spend— directors who are quite stunned by how difficult the system finds it to make decisions that would be very Q319 Chair: Which tends to be the negative bit. easy to make in the private sector. Do you recognise Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is the negative bit; that is right. that there is this risk-averse culture at the Civil Service? Q320 Chair: That is not the leadership and Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do not recognise that. engagement bit. Chair: You don’t recognise it? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No; exactly. I think you are right, Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I really do not. If anything, and one of the things that I have been trying to work we are up for big risks and managed risks, because on is getting a coherent leadership story across the we have to be with these reductions in budgets. At whole of the Civil Service. This is where I think our times, we have to say things that non-execs and agendas coincide, because— Ministers find very boring, such as, “I’m sorry, but there is a statutory requirement that you consult for x Q321 Chair: How can you do that unless Ministers months,” or, “There is a state aid issue with the EU are prepared to lead it on that basis? that requires you to do this.” We, and I regard it as Sir Gus O'Donnell: What I have tried to do is bring part of my job, have to ensure that what we do is Ministers and the Civil Service together, and a good consistent with the law, and that slows things down example would be the event that we have just had— in general. the Top 200. I created that group, which did not exist before and which is the top of the Civil Service, and Q326 Chair: But if the Government want to I had the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister challenge that, should the Civil Service not help them and the Minister for the Cabinet Office all talking to to challenge that? that group about how they can work better together Sir Gus O'Donnell: Certainly, but what we have to and across boundaries. say is, “By all means change the law, in which case you don’t have to do this, but actually the laws that Q322 Chair: Do you not feel it would be easier to Parliament has passed, and that we have to make sure do that if the Government articulated a clear view of you obey, require you to do a, b and c.” They find that what they want the Civil Service to look like in three very frustrating, and that is what that reference to the years’ time in a White Paper? dead-weight of previous means. We are just saying to Ev 56 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB them, “That’s the world, as is. You cannot just change been bandaged against speaking the whole truth. Are that overnight. You cannot break the law.” you going to get a moment now—now that you are demob happy—where you do the equivalent of the Q327 Chair: So you would describe the Civil last ambassador’s letter where you state what you Service as a flexible and responsive organisation? really think and give us some sage advice? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes, I would, and we are as Chair: A valedictory telegram, please. frustrated as others about not being able to move as Sir Gus O'Donnell: I will think carefully about that. quickly, and we can put to our Ministers enormous There are certain things that I can be absolutely clear numbers of recommendations for changes. I suspect about: you will not be seeing the O’Donnell memoirs. that my No. 1 recommendation—this is probably I am so firmly against that sort of thing. I think that getting into an area that I should not, but I am leaving, is a violation of the trust that is placed in us. On the so what the heck—would be to have a lot less other hand, I do think that I have a role in terms of legislation. trying to make governance improve—[Interruption.] Chair: That is very interesting. Chair: We must go and vote. Have no fear; we are not legislating. It is an Opposition day. Q328 Kelvin Hopkins: On that point, during the Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. previous Government, under both Blair and Brown, On resuming— there seemed to be vast amounts of legislation going through. Much of it was unnecessary and was Q332 Chair: No further valedictory thoughts have sometimes not used. There were great big Bills going occurred to you? through every year. My impression so far is that there Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I will happily respond to is much less legislation going through. Is my your questions. impression wrong? Chair: It is just all held up in the Lords. Sir Gus O'Donnell: To be honest, I think it is a Q333 Chair: Thank you very much. mindset. I come at these things from my background, We will move on now to the handling of the Werritty which is economics, and if you have a policy problem, affair. May I start by asking you how you first became let us think about how we can influence human aware of Dr Fox’s contact with Adam Werritty? behaviour and how we might tax/subsidy various Sir Gus O'Donnell: That was during the whole things and try and solve that in that way. The last process where there had been some media stories, and thing that I would think of is legislation. On the other then the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of hand, the one thing that all of our Ministers have in Defence looked and did that report early on. common is that they sit in a legislative body— Paul Flynn: But that is it: dogs bark, babies cry, and Q334 Chair: So you do not think that there were any politicians legislate. e-mails or conversations with No. 10 before then or any concerns raised informally? No conversations at Q329 Chair: Is not the problem also that if a great all. Department of state has no legislation— Sir Gus O'Donnell: I was not aware of anything, no. Sir Gus O'Donnell: Bliss! Chair: the top policy advisers in that Department feel Q335 Chair: Was Ursula Brennan the first person to as though they are a bit out of the game? raise this with you? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. I would say that that would Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. be bliss. They could do really serious, proper stuff. They could talk about implementing existing policies Q336 Chair: What advice did you give her when she better. They could do 101 things. You do not need first raised it with you? legislation. Sir Gus O'Donnell: That she should investigate it seriously and that this did raise some very Q330 Chair: I hope that is right, but would you not fundamental issues. Very quickly, it became apparent agree that it has historically been the case that the that it was better for that to come over to me to highest-status jobs in the Civil Service are about establish the facts, because obviously— sitting beside a Minister who is putting through flagship legislation, not running the UK passport Q337 Chair: I was going to ask you if you advised service? her to investigate it—that would not seem to be Sir Gus O'Donnell: I can safely say that I have never got really into the detail of passing—I have never necessarily the right solution. been in charge of a legislative Bill team. Whenever Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, indeed, and it was not me. It anybody has put to me an idea about doing legislation, was, in fact, the former Secretary of State who asked I have always said, “Why?” If I have a regret about her to investigate. the career structure that I have had, it is that I wish I had spent more time running a delivery organisation. Q338 Chair: Is that when she raised it with you? It is not that I wish I spent more time learning about Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. legislation. Q339 Chair: So she did not raise it with you before Q331 Paul Flynn: In your astonishing career, serving then. so many Prime Ministers, your mouth has generally Sir Gus O'Donnell: That’s right. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 57
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
Q340 Chair: Did you, at any stage, feel that she problem with the Freedom of Information Act is that should have raised it with you beforehand? virtually everything is subject to a public interest test, Sir Gus O'Donnell: With hindsight, I think it is so I do not know whether when I give advice to probably right that this should have come to me anyone—when we have a conversation around the earlier, yes. Cabinet table, I cannot guarantee to Cabinet Ministers that they can actually speak without fear or favour, if Q341 Chair: When did you first raise the matter with they disagree with something, and that that the Prime Minister? information will remain private, because there could Sir Gus O'Donnell: When it became apparent that be an FOI request. I could put in policy exemptions, there were these stories, the Prime Minister and I but I have already been down this route. I have gone discussed the issue. He asked me to investigate to find to a tribunal and I have lost—for Cabinet minutes. I out the facts. I went off and started working on a am very pleased to say that the Cabinet thought that report. As I was doing that and establishing the facts, the principle was so important that they vetoed that, we had the statement from the Secretary of State and which they are allowed to do under the legislation. I then his resignation. think that it is having a very negative impact on the freedom of policy discussions. You just do not know Q342 Chair: But when you raised it with the Prime what is— Minister, was he already aware of it? Chair: Thank you for that. We might come back to Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, there were already media that. reports. Q348 Alun Cairns: We have heard reports from Q343 Chair: So he had not asked you to investigate Lord Wilson in particular about the sorts of it? investigation that should have been conducted into the Sir Gus O'Donnell: There were media reports; we affair and whether an investigation was an then discussed the issue. The Secretary of State had investigation or whether it was a preliminary inquiry. asked the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of But the fundamental issue that came out was that it Defence to look at it. When the Prime Minister and I was his view that the report into Dr Fox should not discussed it, we agreed that actually it would be better have been made public. Do you concur with that and, if I looked at it and took over—as it were—the if so, why? investigation from Ursula Brennan. Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think in this era we just can’t get into this stage where we have got reports of this Q344 Chair: I want to be completely fair to the PUS kind where the Secretary of State has resigned. If you at MOD, but you have said that, with hindsight, she look at the report that Sir Philip Mawer did into should have raised it with you earlier. What do you Shahid Malik, that was published. It was similar, a think has been learnt from that? ministerial issue. So, I think that inevitably we are Sir Gus O'Donnell: What has been learnt is going to be in a world where these things are public. summarised in the recommendations in my report: To be honest, my instincts are where you can, to be “Permanent Secretaries should discuss with Ministers transparent. at the time of their appointment and regularly thereafter whether any acquaintances or advisers have Q349 Alun Cairns: Do you think Lord Wilson was contractual relationships with the department or are involved in policy development.” There is a whole set way off the mark on this or does he not appreciate the of very clear recommendations to ensure that this sort times that we are in and the drives for transparency? of thing actually gets tackled earlier. Sir Gus O'Donnell: Things have moved on and I think the way the FOI Act has been interpreted, Q345 Chair: Should not that report have been private whether or not one might think it should be published advice to the Prime Minister? is out of your control. The question then just becomes Sir Gus O'Donnell: The point is that a lot of this do you publish straight away or later. I thought that it advice and a lot of the issues had been raised already was in the best interests of everyone, including the in Parliament by the Secretary of State himself in the former Secretary of State, that the report was out statement that he gave. I did this more detailed report. there. My experience of these reports is that you will be asked for them. They will be subject to FOI requests Q350 Greg Mulholland: Sir Gus, the evidence and all the rest of it, so my basic view was that we provided by Lord Turnbull suggested that one charge should be— that had to be laid against Dr Fox and the ministerial code was the failure to preserve collective Q346 Chair: But that is advice to Ministers; it is responsibility in respect of the Government’s policy not FOI. on Sri Lanka. Was the investigation of a potential Sir Gus O'Donnell: I wish. I wish the FOI— breach of this nature ever raised with you? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Certainly issues like that arose Q347 Chair: So another valedictory message is that when you are talking about and just putting together the Freedom of Information Act needs a bit of a the sets of meetings that had taken place. In terms of revisit? the report that I was doing, in a sense by the time my Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, now you are tempting me, report was finished the Secretary of State had already and I am afraid that I am going to be tempted. The resigned and I concentrated on those aspects that had Ev 58 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB been the subject of discussion in Parliament and by the Secretary of State, most certainly. Irrespective of the Secretary of State. the wording, I think the facts are that they had been raised more than once, most certainly. Q351 Greg Mulholland: This is an important point. Lord Turnbull giving evidence said of Dr Fox: “He Q356 Kelvin Hopkins: There was press speculation was running a separate policy on Sri Lanka, which at the time, I remember, that these matters had not was the responsibility of William Hague, then he been raised with you by the Permanent Secretary soon employed a man to do it, and then he found the money enough. We had Lord Wilson here, saying that there to pay the man. I think that is the sequence of it, but was a similar example where a Minister was they started with the Werritty bit of it rather than apparently doing political things that were not in line, actually what he was using Werritty for.” Did you if you like, with Government policy, and he had raised understand that there is a strong feeling that this has that with the Cabinet Secretary back in the 1970s. It not been looked into and should have been? had gone straight to the Prime Minister, the Prime Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, I think the reality is that Minister had taken it to Cabinet, and the Minister the Secretary of State took responsibility: he had concerned was brought into line in that way. I just broken the ministerial code and resigned. The wondered if action had not been taken appropriately question then about some of these other issues—there on this occasion. were certain things on the record about what had Sir Gus O'Donnell: Let me be clear: I said that, with happened in Sri Lanka and he had consulted the hindsight, I wish the Permanent Secretary for Defence Foreign Secretary about them. had raised it with me earlier, with the issues. On the point that Mr Mulholland raised about a policy issue, Q352 Greg Mulholland: So you don’t accept that I think what was done was absolutely right, where there is an issue here that should have been looked there were issues. Of course, there is the whole into? overlap between defence and foreign policy; they are Sir Gus O'Donnell: To what purpose? The Secretary very intertwined. The Foreign Secretary and the of State admitted that he had broken the ministerial Secretary of State for Defence did have discussions to code. The Secretary of State decided and took sort out issues like Sri Lanka. responsibility for this and resigned. Q357 Kelvin Hopkins: On this particular issue, I Q353 Greg Mulholland: You say, to what purpose, have one supplementary question. If the phrase “on but again, to quote Lord Turnbull, “The mystery is repeated occasions” was removed, why was it so why that charge was never brought against him in this altered? Any thoughts? report, and I think they were on the doctrine of,”—I Sir Gus O'Donnell: There may have been a difference have to say this does sound very much like what you of view about what “on repeated occasions” meant. are saying—“‘Don’t kick a man when he’s down, Certainly, as far as I was concerned, it was more when it’s all done and dusted.’” But surely, in any than once. issue that involves a breach of the ministerial code there should be a full and proper investigation of all Kelvin Hopkins: That is “repeated”. charges. The resignation does not interfere with that. That is the end of that particular Minister’s role, but Q358 Chair: Are you not concerned that the matter that does not mean that charges are not retrospectively may have been raised “on repeated occasions”, but looked into. that there was no evidence of it being raised, and does Sir Gus O'Donnell: Sure. I did look at the Sri Lankan that not represent a failure of procedure in the evidence and, as I say, there had been discussions private office? between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, there is a real question, yes, State for Defence on that issue. about whether there were notes of it being raised. I imagine that this was probably raised orally, so that Q354 Greg Mulholland: So you think that will be the issue, and people’s memories may have effectively Lord Turnbull was wrong in suggesting a been different. breach of collective responsibility on the policy on Sri Lanka? Q359 Kelvin Hopkins: It does seem important to Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is right, because I would say me, when something like this becomes of serious that the Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary concern, that it was not raised earlier, or with had discussed these issues, and I discussed it with the sufficient force for it to be dealt with earlier. Foreign Secretary. Chair: And it was not recorded. Chair: That seems pretty comprehensive. Sir Gus O'Donnell: If you look at my series of recommendations, they are all about these things Q355 Kelvin Hopkins: It has been reported that the being raised by Permanent Secretaries with Ministers, initial draft of your report stated that Civil Service being discussed on appointment and regularly concerns about Dr Fox’s contact with Mr Werritty thereafter, and being recorded, so I agree with you. In were raised “on repeated occasions”, but the phrase a sense, what I am saying with these recommendations was removed from the final draft. Is that correct? is that we should toughen up the procedures. I am Sir Gus O'Donnell: To be honest, I really cannot suggesting that we need to learn lessons from this remember, but it is certainly the case that issues had exercise and make sure that we have robust been raised more than once. It had been raised with procedures in place. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 59
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
Q360 Chair: Is there no case for amending the Civil Q366 Paul Flynn: May I come back to it? The code Service code in this respect? The Civil Service code goes on to say—if you want the rest of it—that if a is voluminous on serving Ministers and being helpful matter warrants further investigation, the Cabinet to Ministers, but it is a very short code. I cannot see Secretary and the Prime Minister should “refer the anything in it about what you do when the Minister is matter to the independent adviser on Ministers’ breaching the ministerial code. interests.” He exists; he is still is around. Why Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, if you like, that should be wasn’t it? something that Perm Secs deal with. Sir Gus O'Donnell: What I would have done when I was looking at the facts—I was trying to establish Q361 Chair: It is something that a private secretary whether there was anything to this—would have been or a diary secretary is likely to know about first of all. to hand the material over and say to the Prime Sir Gus O'Donnell: First of all, yes, and they should Minister, “You now need to get this investigated.” We take the matter up with their Permanent Secretary. just got overtaken by events along the way. That would be the way to do it. Q367 Paul Flynn: Was it not a quick fix done for Q362 Chair: Where does it say that in the Civil political reasons, as has been suggested by two of our Service code? witnesses? If Philip Mawer had taken it over, the Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do not have it in front of me, whole thing would have rumbled on for months. It but they know that they are supposed to operate with was convenient for you to do a quick job on this to honesty and objectivity. get it out of the way, dead and buried, so that it did not embarrass the Government. Q363 Chair: Yes, but is that not the ambiguity that Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do not think so. It was clear is left? Is there not a case for amending the Civil from what the Secretary of State himself had said, and Service code so that it is clearer about what civil it was backed up in my report, that there was a clear servants do when they find themselves in that very breach of the ministerial code. The Secretary of State difficult position? took responsibility for that and resigned. If you had Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. Remember that of the said, “Right, we want a full, lengthy investigation into 470,000 civil servants who will look at the code—I all these issues,” what would the Secretary of State am delighted to say that 86% are aware of the code, have done? In the past—in the Shahid Malik case, and that has gone up in the latest survey; sorry, I could for example—the Minister was suspended. Would you not resist that—most of them go nowhere near have wanted a long period of having the Secretary of Ministers. For them this is not an issue at all. State for Defence suspended? I just do not think that There is a question, you are absolutely right, for those would have been good for government. around Ministers. There may be a better way for us to get the message across through guidance to private Q368 Paul Flynn: What I want is for the full truth offices—I would extend it to press offices—and of this to come out, so that we can plan to ensure that giving a duty to Permanent Secretaries, which I think some of the activities that are alleged to have been my recommendations do, to make sure that there are going on, and may have happened, will not take place procedures in place to pick up this sort of thing. in future. That is our main goal. Will Sir Philip Mawer have a look at this again? Will he continue the Q364 Chair: The tragedy is that the whole thing investigation and look at the loose ends that remain? could have been avoided. Sir Gus O'Donnell: In a sense, we feel that this has Sir Gus O'Donnell: Indeed. That is why I always say covered the ground. to people that you are doing your Secretary of State a favour by being robust, honest and challenging in Q369 Paul Flynn: Okay. Matthew Gould has been these sorts of areas to ensure that things are done the subject of a very serious complaint from two of properly. my constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin. When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met Q365 Paul Flynn: May I personally thank you for the ambassador, and they strongly believe—it is your unfailing courtesy and help over the years that I nothing to do with this case at all—that he was serving have been on this Committee? You have occasionally the interest of the Israeli Government, and not the had courtesy back from us, too; that is a bit interests of two British citizens. This has been the uncharacteristic from this group of people. Possibly subject of correspondence and so on. your abiding legacy will be your contribution to In your report, you suggest that there were two promoting the ethos of the Civil Service—civil service meetings between the ambassador and Werritty and as a job that has rewards and responsibilities above Liam Fox. Questions and letters have proved that, in what a commercial job would offer. We wish you well fact, six such meetings took place. There are a number if you do retire. of issues around this. I do not normally fall for The Civil Service code states: “It is not the role of the conspiracy theories, but the ambassador has Cabinet Secretary…to enforce the Code.” Was your proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has investigation into a possible breach of the code itself previously served in Iran, in the service. Werritty is a a breach of the code? self-proclaimed— Sir Gus O'Donnell: What I was doing was looking at Robert Halfon: Point of order, Chairman. What is the the facts— point of this? Ev 60 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
Paul Flynn: Let me get to it. Werritty is a self- lobbyists or people applying to his Department proclaimed expert on Iran. because, on occasions, he eats privately, and on other Chair: I have to take a point of order. occasions he eats ministerially? Are you accepting the Robert Halfon: Mr Flynn is implying that the British idea? It is possibly a source of great national ambassador to Israel is working for a foreign power, interest—the eating habits of their Secretary of State. which is out of order. It appears that he might well have a number of Paul Flynn: I quote the Daily Mail: “Mr Werritty is stomachs, it has been suggested, if he can divide his a self-proclaimed expert on Iran and has made several time this way. It does seem to be a way of getting visits. He has also met senior Israeli officials, leading round the ministerial code, if people can announce to accusations”—not from me, from the Daily Mail— that what they are doing is private rather than “that he was close to the country’s secret service, ministerial. Mossad.” There may be nothing in that, but that Sir Gus O'Donnell: The important point here was appeared in a national newspaper. that, when the Secretary of State had that meeting, he Chair: I am going to rule on a point of order. Mr had an official with him—namely, in this case, the Flynn has made it clear that there may be nothing in ambassador. That is very important, and I should these allegations, but it is important to have put it on stress that I would expect our ambassador in Israel to the record. Be careful how you phrase questions. have contact with Mossad. That will be part of his Paul Flynn: Indeed. The two worst decisions taken job. It is totally natural, and I do not think that you by Parliament in my 25 years were the invasion of should infer anything from that about the individual’s Iraq—joining Bush’s war in Iraq—and the invasion of biases. That is what ambassadors do. Our ambassador Helmand province. We know now that there were in Pakistan will have exactly the same set of wide things going on in the background while this was contacts. going on. The charge in this case is that Werritty was the servant of neo-con people who were in America, Q373 Paul Flynn: I have good reason, as I said, from who take an aggressive view on Iran. They want to constituency matters, to be unhappy about the foment a war in Iran in the same way as in the early ambassador. Other criticisms have been made about years, there was another— the ambassador; he is unique in some ways in the role Chair: Order. I must ask you to move to a question he is performing. There have been suggestions that he that is relevant to the inquiry. is too close to a foreign power. Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Chair, this is not Q370 Paul Flynn: Okay. The question is, are you about the ambassador to Israel. This is supposed to be satisfied that you missed out on the extra four about the Werritty affair. meetings that took place, and does this not mean that Paul Flynn: It is absolutely crucial to this report. If those meetings should have been investigated because neo-cons such as yourself, Robert, are plotting a war of the nature of Mr Werritty’s interests? in Iran, we should know about it. Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think if you look at some of Chair: Order. I think the line of questioning is very those meetings, some people are referring to meetings involved. I have given you quite a lot of time, Mr that took place before the election. Flynn. If you have further inquiries to make of this, they could be pursued in correspondence. May I ask Q371 Paul Flynn: Indeed, which is even more you to ask one final question before we move on? worrying. Sir Gus O'Donnell: One thing I would stress: we are Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am afraid they were not the talking about the ambassador and I think he has a right subject—what members of the Opposition do is not of reply. Mr Chairman, I know there is an interesting something that the Cabinet Secretary should look into. question of words regarding Head of the Civil Service It is not relevant. versus Head of the Home Civil Service, but this is the Paul Flynn: But these meetings were held— Diplomatic Service, not the Civil Service. Chair: Mr Flynn, would you let him answer please? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I really do not think that was Q374 Chair: So he is not in your jurisdiction at all. within my context, because they were not Ministers Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. of the Government and what they were up to was not something I should get into at all. Q375 Paul Flynn: But you are happy that your report Chair: Final question, Mr Flynn. is final; it does not need to go the manager it would have gone to originally, and that is the end of the Q372 Paul Flynn: No, it is not a final question. I am affair. Is that your view? not going to be silenced by you, Chairman; I have Sir Gus O'Donnell: As I said, some issues arose important things to raise. Let me raise the next where I wanted to be sure that what the Secretary of question anyway. I have stayed silent throughout this State was doing had been discussed with the Foreign meeting so far. Secretary. I felt reassured by what the Foreign You state in the report—on the meeting held between Secretary told me. Gould, Fox and Werritty, on 6 February, in Tel Aviv— that there was a general discussion of international Q376 Chair: I think what Mr Flynn is asking is that affairs over a private dinner with senior Israelis. The your report and the affair raise other issues, but you UK ambassador was present. Are you following the are saying that that does not fall within the remit of line taken by the Secretary of State for Communities your report and that, indeed, the conduct of an and Local Government who says that he can eat with ambassador does not fall within your remit at all. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 61
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is absolutely correct. Prime Minister says, “I need some advice on this Paul Flynn: The charge laid by Lord Turnbull in his ministerial code issue,” does the Cabinet Secretary not evidence with regard to Dr Fox and the ministerial simply say, “That is a matter for Sir Philip Mawer.” code was his failure to observe collective Sir Gus O'Donnell: Because occasionally the Cabinet responsibility, in that case about Sri Lanka. Isn’t the Secretary can say—particularly in this instance, I same charge there about our policies to Iran and admitted—that this is about getting to some civil Israel? servants very quickly to find out what they had said Chair: We have dealt with that, Mr Flynn. and getting people to come up with things urgently. I Paul Flynn: We haven’t dealt with it as far as it was able to operate at somewhat more pace; that is all. applies— Chair: Mr Flynn, we are moving on. Q380 Chair: But then you finish up publishing a Paul Flynn: You may well move on, but I remain report that people feel is not as comprehensive as what very unhappy about the fact that you will not allow Sir Philip Mawer would have produced. me to finish the questioning I wanted to give on a Sir Gus O'Donnell: Obviously, if I had spent longer matter of great importance. on that report, it would have been a longer report. Chair: We are not getting anywhere on that one. Q377 Chair: You have had a long time. On the question of Sir Philip Mawer, don’t we have a Q381 Robert Halfon: Is it not for the Prime Minister bit of a constitutional problem? Sir Philip Mawer is to decide whether a Minister has broken collective now seen as such as nuclear option that, if a reference responsibility, rather than yourself? is made to Sir Philip Mawer, the Minister has Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes, absolutely. On this whole generally resigned before the matter gets to Sir Philip issue of violations of the code, I was just providing Mawer. Doesn’t he need to have a different role? advice for the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister Shouldn’t he be conducting that quick advice to the who decides. Prime Minister, rather than embroiling the Cabinet Secretary in that? Otherwise, it does not seem he has Q382 Robert Halfon: So whether or not there was a a role at all. separate policy is nothing to do with you; it is to do Sir Gus O'Donnell: There is a very important role, with the Prime Minister making a decision on whether which is probably not very visible to you. When every or not a Minister broke the ministerial code. Perm Sec sits down with their Minister and discusses Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. conflicts of interests, their financial holdings, all those sorts of issues, then those reports go to Philip Mawer, who looks at them and analyses. He comes back to us Q383 David Heyes: If Sir Philip Mawer was not the and says, “I’m not sure you are right about this not right person to do the investigation and this exact being a conflict,” or, “I think this is okay.” He gives same situation occurs in the future, who will do the us quite continuous advice. There are occasions when investigation? Will it be the Cabinet Secretary or the there are ways to analyse things. It is true—inevitable Head of the Civil Service? in our system—that Cabinet Secretaries can get Sir Gus O'Donnell: I was not saying that Sir Philip everybody to jump slightly more quickly than was not the right person to do it; I was just saying anybody else. that given the speed with which the media and the story was unfolding, the Prime Minister asked me to Q378 Chair: We are in the embarrassing position, collect some facts, which I may well have passed on where in opposition, at business questions, the man to Sir Philip to produce a longer report. As it was, I who is now Leader of the House of Commons would was able to get what I thought was a reasonable regularly ask the Government why certain matters had amount of information, which backed up the decision not been referred to Sir Philip Mawer. When he gave by the Secretary of State to resign. a statement on this matter, he had to explain to the House why the matter had not been referred to Sir Q384 David Heyes: But in an exact parallel situation Philip Mawer. Is there not a problem with these in the future, with rapid media interest in it and a arrangements? Don’t these arrangements need to be quickly developing situation and the decision is that it reviewed, because they lack credibility and leave open is not for Philip Mawer, is it for the Cabinet the question that there has not been a proper Secretary? Or is it the Head of the Civil Service? Who investigation and that matters have not been properly will it be in future? followed through, as raised by Mr Flynn and others? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I would expect these sort of Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think there is an issue about things about the ministerial code will be for the how we manage investigations in a world where the Cabinet Secretary. I take your point. We need to think media are moving quickly and things are emerging about whether we can find ways to allow these things quickly. I relate to the problem we had before when to be done more quickly by the independent regulator. allegations were made about a Minister; that Minister was suspended. If there are allegations made about a Q385 David Heyes: Is this the missing element in Secretary of State, what are we to do if you are going your sharing out of duties? to have a very lengthy investigation? Sir Gus O'Donnell: It cannot be comprehensive. It cannot cover everything. It would be my view that if Q379 Chair: Why does Sir Philip Mawer necessarily you are talking about violations of the ministerial need to run a lengthy investigation? Why, when the code, it is for the Cabinet Secretary. If you are talking Ev 62 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB about violations of the Civil Service code, it is for the Q392 Robert Halfon: Really, the mistake was not Head of the Civil Service. making him an official voluntary special adviser. Sir Gus O'Donnell: There are very clear rules that Q386 David Heyes: In terms of the report that you special advisers are appointed with the Prime did on this situation, we talked earlier about the final Minister’s consent. That had not happened. draft being modified. You were not clear with us Paul Flynn: In that case, there should be declarations whether that actually happened, but it has been alleged of his income, who was lining his pockets, and they in many press reports. Who has the power in this would preview his organisations. situation to amend, modify or veto your—hopefully— independent report? Who is it that persuaded you to Q393 Robert Halfon: Even if there are cases of make changes to it? other special advisers who are unpaid, do they then Sir Gus O'Donnell: As I am looking at this, it is my have to declare their interests? report and I have the ultimate pen on it. I would have Sir Gus O'Donnell: Absolutely. looked at the evidence. I would question that this was Paul Flynn: It is a clear case that his funding was raised a number of times. Well, how many times? Do being disguised by his status. we have written material on it? Q394 Robert Halfon: Do you think that Cabinet Ministers should have more special advisers? Q387 David Heyes: Who is it that says, “We don’t Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, in general, we have about the like this bit of your report, Sir Gus. Take it out.” right sort of number. I have always said that it is really Sir Gus O'Donnell: There are plenty of people in my good for the Civil Service to have good special office and in the Ministry of Defence and civil advisers. I emphasise “good”. servants who will be looking at it and will be saying, “Is this true? Can we back it up? Do we have the Q395 Robert Halfon: Why do you think that there evidence?” It is those sorts of issues. are enough special advisers? Sir Gus O'Donnell: There is a balance to be had. Q388 Robert Halfon: May I move to the wider Most Secretaries of State seem to get by very context of the Werritty affair? Most of the two reports, adequately on two special advisers. That has been the that of the Permanent Secretary at the MOD and your case for a long time, although we often have more at report, focused on whether or not he should have been the centre of government. allowed at meetings, so on and so forth. Is there not a wider issue about the role of special advisers, how Q396 Robert Halfon: Do you think Ministers of many there are and what their precise responsibility State should be entitled to special advisers? should be? Sir Gus O'Donnell: We are in new territory here, of Sir Gus O'Donnell: We have a special adviser’s code, course, because we have a coalition Government. So so we have very clear rules about what special we have to modify that because sometimes you end advisers should do. If you have someone who isn’t a up in a world where you have a Secretary of State special adviser, we don’t have any codes for them. from one party, who will have his two special Therefore, we are in unchartered territory. It is always advisers, and there may be no other Ministers from better to have people in regularised positions—i.e., the other party there. Having no political side to the special advisers, civil servants or A. N. Others. You coalition in some Departments creates a problem. have to ask yourself lots of questions about A. N. Others. Q397 Robert Halfon: Do you think that the role of special advisers and civil servants became blurred Q389 Robert Halfon: Is it wrong for a Minister to under the last Government with Alastair Campbell appoint somebody as an unpaid special adviser, or are having a semi-civil servant type special adviser role? they only allowed the formal one or two? Paul Flynn: On a point of order. What has this got to Sir Gus O'Donnell: Two for Secretaries of State. do with the Werritty case? He wasn’t a special adviser. There are occasionally unpaid special advisers, but Chair: I am very happy with the line of questioning. they would be subject to the special adviser’s code. Robert Halfon: I am trying to understand the role of special advisers. Chair: We are thinking of conducting an inquiry on Q390 Robert Halfon: If Mr Werritty had been put special advisers. under a formal special adviser responsibility, Sir Gus O'Donnell: Alastair Campbell was very presumably not a lot of this would have occurred. clearly a special adviser. There was no ambiguity Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is very hypothetical. I there. don’t know. Robert Halfon: I am just trying to understand. Q398 Robert Halfon: But he had a Civil Service role, did he not? Q391 Chair: Well, he would have been allowed to Sir Gus O'Donnell: Special adviser. attend those meetings and no questions would have been asked. Q399 Chair: Why do you think Ministers want more Sir Gus O'Donnell: If he were a special adviser? special advisers? Is it just a status thing, or is it this Well, certainly in terms of attending meetings, that frustration thing, because they can’t get the Civil would have been fine. Service to do what they want? Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 63
23 November 2011 Sir Gus O'Donell GCB
Sir Gus O'Donnell: The area that worries me most is been to go and talk to the Secretary of State. If I had when you have special advisers being brought in when worries that I was not being listened to, I would have they are media special advisers. The risk with media gone to the Prime Minister. special advisers is that they see their role as representing their Secretary of State’s view, rather Q404 Robert Halfon: Did the Defence Permanent than the Government’s view. That is a great risk. Secretary explain to you why they had not raised it with you? Q400 Robert Halfon: Are there any other lessons to Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think they felt that they were be learned, apart from what you put in your report, trying to manage a very difficult situation. They were from the Werritty affair? not as empowered as I think they should have been. Sir Gus O'Donnell: Well, I think there is quite a lot in there, and they are fairly stark and clear. Q405 Chair: You have been very helpful, and I would like to thank you for joining us today. I do not Q401 Chair: Is there anything you personally regret? want to end on a particularly sour note; I would like Sir Gus O'Donnell: I wish I had been told about this to echo what my colleague said about your courtesy earlier. I wish that somebody had told me, and I would to this Committee during your period of tenure. You have wanted to go and talk to the Secretary of State. have always been a model witness, and you have been very helpful and friendly towards the Committee and Q402 Chair: Do you think it was a failure of the its members. I cannot judge how the Civil Service is Civil Service? Do you think there was a failure? yet—I do not feel that I know enough about it—but Sir Gus O'Donnell: I have said already that this was what we do know is that the Civil Service is facing raised with the Secretary of State and the behaviour enormous challenges, some very painful, in terms of did not change; therefore it should have been downsizing. Through you, we as a Committee thank escalated. the Civil Service for the spirit with which it is facing these difficulties, and for the loyalty and service that Q403 Kelvin Hopkins: You said that you should it shows to this country. That goes for you personally have raised it with the Secretary of State. Should you as well. Thank you very much indeed. not have raised it with the Prime Minister? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Thank you very much, Mr Sir Gus O'Donnell: I did not know about it, so I was Chairman, for those thoughts. They are much not in a position to do so. What I would have done, appreciated. first of all, if it had been raised with me, would have Ev 64 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
Monday 28 November 2011
Members present: Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair)
Alun Cairns Kelvin Hopkins Charlie Elphicke Greg Mulholland Robert Halfon Lindsay Roy ______
Examination of Witness
Witness: Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, gave evidence.
Q406 Chair: May I welcome you, Minister, to this cannot look forward to defined benefit, guaranteed, meeting of the Public Administration Select index-linked, inflation-proofed pensions. Our first Committee? In principle we are looking at the role of concern, which came out in the Lord Hutton review, the Head of the Civil Service, but there are a number was that those should be continued. of other issues we would like to cover. Could you However, people are living longer, and so it is only identify yourself for the record? right that there should be a better balance between life Mr Maude: I am Francis Maude. I am the Minister spent in work and life spent in retirement. The huge for the Cabinet Office. additional cost of these schemes in the last 10 years, all of which has fallen on the general taxpayer, means Q407 Chair: Can I start with the very current issue that we have to get a fairer balance between what is of the forthcoming strike? Much has been reported paid by the general taxpayer and what is paid by about the fact that there are no negotiations going on; public sector staff. There will still be a larger that you tabled your improved offer without contribution made by the general taxpayer, i.e. the consulting the unions. How do you react to this employer, than is paid by the staff. criticism? We have also been at pains to stress that no one who Mr Maude: That is completely without foundation. is within 10 years of retirement as of 1 April next There have been discussions going on very year will see any change in their retirement age or any intensively. The last formal meeting with the TUC lowering of the value of their pension. Most people, negotiating group was on 2 November when we particularly those on middle and lower incomes, will announced the new offer in Parliament, and since then be able to retire on a pension that is at least as good, there have been intensive discussions in the four and in many cases better, than what they currently schemes that are currently in play. Those meetings are expect, albeit they may have to work longer and pay going on, in one scheme or another, on an almost daily more towards it. basis, and have been throughout. They will continue, probably not on Wednesday, but certainly, I suspect, Q411 Kelvin Hopkins: I did not come here expecting on Tuesday and on Thursday. this discussion to take place, but I would have thought, if we were going to have a discussion, that Q408 Chair: What are those discussions about? we would have had Brendan Barber with you to put Mr Maude: If it is a Civil Service scheme, it is about the other point of view on behalf of the trade unions. how the various moving parts can be best configured, It is a comment, not a question. I have expressed my within the cost ceiling the Government set out, to public support for the industrial action on Wednesday, meet the particular concerns of civil servants. and I hope very much that serious concessions will be made to what I think is a just cause. Q409 Chair: Within the overall cost ceilings, there is Mr Maude: I am always happy to share a platform some flexibility in your position? with Brendan Barber. Mr Maude: Yes. We have said from the outset that there is a huge amount to discuss; there is a huge Q412 Charlie Elphicke: Minister, isn’t there a basic amount of flexibility. There are quite a lot of moving point here that the strikes are taking place on turnouts parts. All we have said is that there aren’t any more of between a quarter and a third? How can it possibly parts. be right for the few to hold to ransom the many? That is not just in the union movement, but across the Q410 Chair: Do you share the view that a scheme in country as a whole. which a worker on a final salary of £34,200 will retire Mr Maude: It is true that the ballots held by the on a pensionable income of £22,800 remains an biggest unions—Unite, GMB, PCS, UNISON—had a excessively generous scheme? turnout in no case of more than a third, and one case Mr Maude: I think it is a generous and a fair scheme. of not much more than a quarter; they were between We want public servants who devote their lives to 25% and 33%. Some of the other unions, particularly public service to be able to look forward to a decent the smaller unions, had higher turnouts, in a couple of pension in retirement. They will still be able to do cases over 50%. That is the way the law is. Those that; pensions that public sector workers will have union leaders who actually call for strike action on the access to will continue to be among the very best basis of these extraordinarily low turnouts, schemes available. Most people in the UK work force particularly when they have argued that this is the Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 65
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP most important issue facing their members for a Mr Maude: No, very rare indeed, but no one is generation, have a limited claim on legitimacy. In suggesting that that test should apply in the unions. most circumstances, I think union leaders would have chosen not to go ahead on those very low turnouts. Q421 Alun Cairns: Minister, amongst the noise of Does it justify changing the law? That is not our first conflicting agendas, how successful do you think the response. We think the strike laws, for the most part, Government have been in communicating the latest work reasonably well, but every time there is a very proposed changes to the pensions so that individual low turnout, and a strike called on the basis of that members of pension schemes understand what the turnout, the case for change, and the advocates for latest proposal is? change, will feel their hand is strengthened. Mr Maude: I think we have had some success, not by any means complete. This is not a very simple issue, Q413 Lindsay Roy: Minister, do you question the and the final proposals for each scheme are not yet legitimacy of the many Members of Parliament who complete: that is what the discussions are about: the have been elected here on less than 50% of the vote? right balance between the accrual rate and what Mr Maude: I do not know of any: there may be one options would be available for members within each or two constituencies where the turnout was less than scheme. There are a whole lot of issues yet to be 50%, but I do not think there are many. finalised within each scheme, which we want to get to as soon as possible. In relation to each of these four Q414 Lindsay Roy: I am talking about of the total schemes there is a calculator available, which public electorate who are entitled to vote. sector staff can access through the Treasury website; Mr Maude: Yes, as I said, there may be cases where they can put in their own individual circumstances and the turnout was below 50%, but I think very few. get a readout, which will not be perfect, because the final details in the scheme are not complete, but will Q415 Lindsay Roy: If we take then the percentage give an indication of what pension they can expect. of the vote that the winning candidate had, there are Anyone who is within 10 years of retirement in April very few who have gained more than 50% of the vote. next year will see no change at all in the pension they Would you agree with that? can expect to retire on, or the age at which they will Mr Maude: Yes, but that is not what is being proposed in relation to union strikes. retire. The indications are that when staff do go on these calculators and put in their details, they are quite surprised to find how good it still is, and some are Q416 Lindsay Roy: You are querying the number of people who turned out, not the people who voted. As beginning to ask what all the fuss is about. I understand it, it is still a paper vote, a postal vote: there is no opportunity to do it via internet and new Q422 Alun Cairns: Do you think that the complexity technology. of pension arrangements per se has served the purpose Mr Maude: Yes. In parliamentary elections, there is a of some people who really would like to see a strike, higher turnout with postal ballots than at the polling potentially leading to political challenges? stations. Mr Maude: To be honest, I think most union leaders do not want there to be a strike, and did not set out at Q417 Lindsay Roy: In some unions. the beginning of this process determined to have a Mr Maude: No, in parliamentary elections the postal strike. Some did. The strikes called in June were vote tends to be a higher turnout than the physical unjustifiable on any basis. Then, at the TUC voting. So I do not accept the argument that the union conference, when one or two unions started saying, strike ballots being held on the basis of a postal ballot “We are going to have a ballot”, all the rest felt they lowers the turnout. I would say exactly the reverse. I could not be left behind. Some, honourably, have think you are confusing two different things. refused to ballot. One of the headteacher unions has refused to ballot on strike action. The Royal College Q418 Lindsay Roy: I am not confusing them. I am of Nursing has said it is completely inappropriate to drawing a parallel between the two. be balloting at this stage, while not ruling it out at Mr Maude: Yes, but it is the wrong parallel, if I may some future stage. That is the responsible approach to say so, with great respect. take, without in any way letting down their members or diminishing their ability to make a powerful case Q419 Lindsay Roy: You may think so. for their members. Mr Maude: Let me just explain why I think it is the Most union leaders have not wanted to strike, but they wrong parallel. The CBI have argued that there should found themselves in a position where they had painted be a requirement for there to be at least a 50% turnout; themselves into a corner. One of the union leaders regardless of what the percentage voting in favour of said on television at the weekend that she took no industrial action is, the ballot would not be valid responsibility for the strike. That is a grotesque thing unless there was a 50% turnout. You are comparing to say: these ballots did not have to be called. Once that with whether an MP got 50% of the vote, which they had been called, the unions did not have to call in many cases does happen, but relatively— for strike action; these are unnecessary, irresponsible, inappropriate, untimely strikes, which will inflict Q420 Lindsay Roy: In most cases they do not get damage on the lives of ordinary people and the 50% of the electoral vote in that area. economy of our country. Ev 66 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP
Q423 Alun Cairns: Have you or the Cabinet Office November, and who is conducting these ongoing learned any lessons? If you had the benefit of negotiations? What progress has been made? hindsight, what would you do differently? Mr Maude: Who told you that there had not been Mr Maude: Golly, probably lots of things, but we meetings since then? have honestly tried to run a genuine, open process. Danny Alexander and I talk, on at least a monthly Q427 Chair: Minister, you said there would be no basis, with a wide group of union leaders in the TUC formal meetings; could you expand on that? group. We embarked on that process at the request of Mr Maude: I am not going to go into details of every the TUC, and as soon as we sensibly could, we started private contact there is between— sector-by-sector scheme talks, which have made very considerable progress. Q428 Lindsay Roy: Can I just ask simply: who has been meeting on your behalf and who has been Q424 Robert Halfon: While I understand meeting on the unions’ behalf? At what level in the completely what the Government have had to do, do organisations were these people? you accept that there will be many decent public Mr Maude: In the formal meetings, what I refer to as sector workers who will be on strike tomorrow, and the plenary sessions— that it is important that, when we communicate this as a Government, public sector workers are not treated in Q429 Lindsay Roy: On 2 November? the same way as some of the hard line union bosses? I Mr Maude: The last one of those was on 2 November, have met some of those public sector people in my but since then there have been intensive discussions own constituency; they are not militants but decent in the schemes, carried out by the employer people who feel nevertheless that the contract they representatives in the teachers’ unions, led by Nick signed up to has been broken over a number of years. Gibb, Minister of State, but with all the teachers’ Mr Maude: Most public sector staff are honest, unions represented. The equivalent process has taken decent, dedicated, hardworking public servants. Most place in the other three schemes—the civil service of them are not on high salaries, although all the scheme led by me, but with my officials conducting evidence is that median pay in the public sector is discussions on a very frequent basis with the unions. now higher than in the private sector. It is absolutely the case that most public sector staff are not militants, Q430 Lindsay Roy: Daily? Two or three times a ready to down tools and walk out at the slightest week? provocation. I absolutely accept that. But I would say Mr Maude: Yes, that kind of frequency. There are to them all: you do not have to go on strike. It is quite other informal contacts at a senior level that take inappropriate to be going on strike at a time when place, and which I am not going to talk about. discussions are not only happening but making progress, and there is a very good prospect in each of Q431 Lindsay Roy: There has been some progress, these schemes of reaching agreement by the end of but you cannot tell us any of the detail. the year, which is the deadline we have set. Mr Maude: In each of the schemes there has been a lot of progress, but I would get into serious trouble Q425 Robert Halfon: Do you not think there is a with the trade union side if I were to seek to conduct problem in the fact that a large number of very decent, those negotiations in public. There has been serious moderate people feel that they have to go on strike? progress, which is why it is so disappointing that there Has there been—touching on what my colleague said is a strike in the middle of these discussions, when here earlier—a problem in communication in some there is such progress being made. ways? Mr Maude: It will be a minority of public sector staff Q432 Chair: The point has been made, Minister, that who go on strike. Union membership in the public we do not have the unions to put their side of the case, and I say to my colleagues that, were we pressed on sector is only running at about 50% of staff; by no that, we would have to consider it. Moving on, we means have all of those been balloted, and by no have been holding our inquiry into the role of the means will all of those who have been balloted go on Head of the Civil Service and the changes that have strike. It is very hard to know with teachers, because been announced at the top. We have had a stream of you do not get that granularity in the information, but former Cabinet Secretaries, who have made their in the Civil Service, a strike was called by only one views very clear and expressed many concerns about of the unions in the summer, and only 40% of PCS this change. Do you feel these concerns have been members even went on strike. We will see what the allayed? turnout is. The TUC is promising up to 3 million Mr Maude: I have not fully understood them. I have public sector workers going on strike; I hope it will read, with reasonable care, what this illustrious group be a lot less than that, but I do not know. have said. The thing I do not understand is concern about the Head of the Civil Service being a part-time Q426 Lindsay Roy: In my constituency, a great role, because it always has been. As far as I am aware, many people with a heavy heart and with great there has never been a time when the Head of the reluctance will take part in this industrial action. It is Civil Service has been a full time role. Before the a very critical time in our industrial relations. Why is early 1980s, when it became a part-time role held by it that the leadership of the Cabinet Office and the the Cabinet Secretary—which had previously been leadership of the trade unions have not met since 2 separate, and a full-time role in itself—it was a role Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 67
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP held by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. At Q438 Greg Mulholland: One concern was raised, every stage it has been held, as a part-time role, by not in terms of how the role as now defined will work, another senior mandarin. The difference on this but in terms of the way it has been reorganised; this occasion is that the role is shared with the Permanent is not talking about the appointment that has Secretary in an operational Department, although it is happened, but about the theory and what may happen much more of a policy Department than an in the future. Is there a danger that the applications operational Department. for the post of Head of the Civil Service will only realistically involve a pool of Permanent Secretaries Q433 Chair: To summarise the two main concerns in less busy, perhaps less large, important very briefly, one is that the role of the Head of the Departments? The concern is that the very best Civil Service itself has been downgraded, because, Permanent Secretaries in those challenging inevitably, the Head of the Civil Service will not have Departments may not be able to apply for the job. Do the same regular access to the Prime Minister as the you think that is a valid concern? Are we ensuring we Cabinet Secretary has. The second is that the Prime are able to get the best person to be the Head of the Minister himself may be diluting his influence across Civil Service? Whitehall, because the Cabinet Secretary will no Mr Maude: Yes, I do think that. I look around, and longer be Head of the Civil Service. Those seem to there are a number of very strong candidates for this be the two main concerns. role. Bob Kerslake, although he is not running a big Mr Maude: I do not think it is the case. Prime delivery Department at the moment, is one of that Ministers will generally not be intimately involved in growing number of Permanent Secretaries at the head the day-to-day running of the Civil Service; that has of big mainstream Departments who have got serious never been the case. The Prime Minister’s ability to operational delivery experience, which is crucial in influence what happens in the Civil Service, to drive this role. Gus O’Donnell, in his evidence to you, made a process of Civil Service reform, will remain as a point about how many Permanent Secretaries have strong as it has ever been. It will be stronger, because now carved through this route, which is a very benign there will be someone whose primary focus, at the development; it is part of what Lord Fulton centre of Government, is driving Civil Service recommended in his Report in the late 1960s. It is reform delivery. perhaps little noticed that that has been a good development that has taken place under Sir Gus’s Q434 Chair: The job description says that the Head period in office. of the Civil Service will work “closely with the I am confident that this can be made to work. Is this Minister for the Cabinet Office”, but the organisation the right way to do it for all time? Not necessarily, but chart shows that the Head of the Civil Service reports it is a very good model, and I very strongly support to you, as well as to the Prime Minister and the it. There will come times, in decades to come, no Deputy Prime Minister. How will these reporting doubt, when different Prime Ministers come to a relationships work in practice? different conclusion, as they have in the past. Mr Maude: Our expectation is that I will meet very frequently indeed with the Head of the Civil Service. Q439 Kelvin Hopkins: The press notice issued by 10 He came in for a chat this morning. Our expectation Downing Street on 11 October announcing Sir Gus’s is that we will meet certainly weekly, and there will retirement stated that Ian Watmore, as Permanent be other occasions when he is present at meetings that Secretary to the Cabinet Office, “will report to the I have. It will be a very close working relationship Minister for the Cabinet Office”. The organogram with me. It has been made clear by all of us that there provided by Sir Gus said that Mr Watmore would need to be regular meetings with the Prime Minister, report to the Head of the Civil Service. Which is who will want to be kept abreast of developments on correct? a very regular basis. Mr Maude: Both— Kelvin Hopkins: They are both. Q435 Chair: You just said that Prime Ministers tend Mr Maude:—in the same sense that any departmental not to be closely involved with Civil Service reform. Permanent Secretary’s primary reporting line is to the Mr Maude: Yes. Secretary of State. I am, for these purposes, the Secretary of State at the Head of the Cabinet Office: Q436 Chair: Can you explain that? I chair the Departmental Board, I am the Minister Mr Maude: Look at it this way: when the Prime responsible for the Cabinet Office, so the Permanent Minister meets with Gus O’Donnell, as when previous Secretary reports to me, as Gus O’Donnell does at Prime Ministers met with previous Cabinet Secretaries the moment in his role as Permanent Secretary to the and Heads of the Civil Service, most of what they talk Cabinet Office. All departmental Permanent about is not the Civil Service; it is the ordinary daily Secretaries also have a reporting line to the Head of conduct of Government. When the Prime Minister the Civil Service. That is to make the point that Ian meets with Bob Kerslake, the only thing they will talk Watmore’s reporting line will be to the Head of the about is the Civil Service. So there will, in that sense, Civil Service, Bob Kerslake, and not to the Cabinet be more focus on it. Secretary.
Q437 Chair: Presumably, most of the Prime Q440 Kelvin Hopkins: My very strong impression is Minister’s function will be delegated to you. that this organogram was drawn following criticisms Mr Maude: Yes, as it is now. from previous Cabinet Secretaries at our meetings to Ev 68 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP try to build up the status of the Head of the Civil big legislative programme mostly delivered, where the Service—to try to make him look as if he or she was downsizing and restructuring of the Department has equal to the Cabinet Secretary, when really the been carried out very quickly and very early, means Cabinet Secretary is going to be the boss in spite of that Sir Bob will have more capacity to devote to his the fact that we have a separate Head of the Civil role as Head of the Civil Service than if it was being Service. I am not convinced by the way they have put shared with the Cabinet Secretary. them on a parallel line in the diagram, as though they The Cabinet Secretary in the past has had three roles: are exactly equal in status. Can you convince me? as Cabinet Secretary; as Head of the Civil Service; Mr Maude: I can have a go, but the proof of the and as Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office. The pudding will be in the eating, to use the clichéd Cabinet Office is a more complicated organism than phrase. We will make it work. Bob Kerslake and it was previously. Jeremy Heywood are very different people with very different skill sets. We have a huge job to do with Q444 Kelvin Hopkins: As well as Head of the Civil reforming the Civil Service, and we will make this Service and Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus is also work. I hear criticisms that the wiring looks currently the Cabinet’s Permanent Secretary. He told complicated and all of that: this is much more about us last week that he currently spends 10% of his time chemistry than physics; it is much more about how carrying out this role. As Minister for the Cabinet you make it work in practice than how the Office, do you welcome the proposal to have a organogram and structural engineering look. This will full-time member of staff as Cabinet Office work, I am confident of that, but we will need to make Permanent Secretary? it work. Mr Maude: Yes, absolutely. Q441 Kelvin Hopkins: Problems that occur with a Q445 Kelvin Hopkins: Is it not strange that we are Permanent Secretary and a Minister are usually reducing staffing elsewhere in the Civil Service, but matters of policy. The Permanent Secretary would creating jobs at the highest level? surely go to the Cabinet Secretary—the policy line— rather than the Head of the Civil Service. Won’t the Mr Maude: We are not: if you do the maths you will Head of the Civil Service be rather sidelined in these work out that there is one fewer Permanent Secretary relationships? coming out of this, because the three Permanent Mr Maude: The policy accountability of a Permanent Secretaries who will hold the roles of Cabinet Secretary is to the Minister, the Secretary of State, not Secretary, Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office, to the Cabinet Secretary. and Head of the Civil Service are already, all of them, Permanent Secretaries and none of them will be replaced at Permanent Secretary level. Q442 Kelvin Hopkins: We heard from some of our previous interviewees, the former Cabinet Secretaries, that sometimes the Permanent Secretary or Civil Q446 Kelvin Hopkins: It looks to me as if Jeremy Servants need to get to the Prime Minister, in effect, Heywood did not want to be Head of the Civil because they are concerned about a Minister. We had Service, and he has said to the Prime Minister, “I want a recent event in which a Minister sought to resign to be your policy adviser, but can you find someone because there seemed to be a difference of view on, else to do the Civil Service job?” Is that not what among other things, major issues of foreign affairs. really happened? Sometimes Permanent Secretaries, if there is a really Mr Maude: I do not think so. There has been a long serious problem, have to go through to the Prime discussion about whether this was more than could Minister. Won’t they go through the Cabinet Secretary be reasonably done by one person, particularly in the because that is where the policy line is? circumstances of a Coalition Government, when the Mr Maude: That is not about a reporting line, it is co-ordinating role of the Cabinet Secretary is more simply about the right conduit. A reporting line is who demanding than was previously the case; when the holds you to account. On policy issues, a departmental Cabinet Office itself has more going on in it Permanent Secretary is held to account by his or her operationally than was the case previously; and when Minister. there is a need for a major programme of Civil Service reform. Q443 Kelvin Hopkins: I am still not convinced by this. It looks to me as if a structure has been built Q447 Charlie Elphicke: A very brief supplemental around certain personalities, rather than a structure to Mr Hopkins’ question: Mr Hopkins put that point being designed and then people appointed to posts, to you, possibly in part, because Lord Butler, in his given a sensible design. Isn’t that a fair criticism? evidence to us, said that Jeremy Heywood was not the Mr Maude: I do not think so. You could design this least bit interested in personnel; someone else can do in all sorts of different ways; I have seen different that; he wants to do the policy side. How could Lord formulations, and it has been done in all sorts of Butler possibly have got that idea? different ways. The one common feature has always Mr Maude: He said what—that Jeremy Heywood is been that the Head of the Civil Service is a part-time not interested in personnel? role held by someone with another serious, senior job. That remains the case. The fact that Sir Bob’s other Q448 Charlie Elphicke: He is not really interested role is with a Department that isn’t huge, where a lot in personnel. So the Head of the Civil Service can do of the policy agenda is already under way and the that bit; he will go and do the policy bit and the Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 69
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP
Cabinet Secretary bit. Why would Lord Butler think Mr Maude: This has been the case. I am just finding that that was the case, if it was not the case? the answers on the People Survey. First, it is a good Mr Maude: If it were the case, why would that be thing to do, a People Survey. a problem? Lindsay Roy: Absolutely. Mr Maude: It is now being done across the whole Q449 Charlie Elphicke: Is that what this is really Civil Service, which is cheaper and gives better about? comparisons than was the case when it was done in Mr Maude: No. I am not really following the drift different ways, more expensively, by different here. Jeremy Heywood is perfectly interested in Departments. You are quite right: the engagement personnel issues: I have discussed them with him levels are relatively low. frequently. If that were the case, would the Cabinet Lindsay Roy: Remarkably low. Secretary being less involved in every senior Mr Maude: This is not a new development, but they personnel decision be a problem? I do not see that it have not got any worse. would be a particular problem. Lindsay Roy: We want them to get better. Mr Maude: In the current circumstances—the pay freeze, downsizing, job insecurity, public spending Q450 Charlie Elphicke: I am not saying it is a cuts, reforms to public sector pensions—the fact that problem. I am saying it is a big reorganisation to have the majority of civil servants find what they do just because one person does not want to deal with stimulating and engaging is rather encouraging. On personnel issues. the specific issue of management of change, it says Mr Maude: That is not what this is about. The the benchmark score is 38%. I am told that it has gone explanation for this is entirely what I say: each of the up by 1%, which is in the margin of error, since last three roles that Sir Gus has filled with distinction is year. Does it need to be better? Yes, of course it does. more demanding than it was, and that is why this Management of change I would say is one of the reorganisation has taken place. problems we are seeking to address.
Q451 Robert Halfon: Why do you think that all the Q457 Lindsay Roy: How do you plan to bring about grandees have opposed these plans? Is it what David improvement? Would a full time Head of Civil Cameron said in the Select Committee: that the civil Service facilitate that transformational change? There servants were the greatest trade union in the world is a cultural issue that needs to be addressed: would and were defending vested interests? you accept that? Mr Maude: Who am I to disagree with the Prime Mr Maude: There is definitely a cultural issue that Minister? And I do not—he says hastily. There is a needs to be changed, but the Civil Service is not a tendency for us all to think that everything was perfect single unified institution, it never has been. in the world we used to inhabit. Lindsay Roy: We are well aware of that. Mr Maude: It is more separate than it ideally would Q452 Chair: Minister, we do not have a new job be. I have talked in public about some things that description for Mr Watmore. Could you provide us could be done, which could start to make it feel more with one? unified. In effect, the senior Civil Service is Mr Maude: I could do, but it would be very boring. theoretically managed as a single resource; in practice it is not. That is something we need to change to make Q453 Chair: We are into boring. We do boring. it feel more interchangeable. The Fast Stream Mr Maude: I am sure we could. graduate entry is not managed as a single resource. Chair: We would like it all the same. People are recruited as graduates into the civil service. They join and find they have joined the Home Office, Mr Maude: Yes, sure. the Inland Revenue, or a particular bit of Government and that is where they tend to stay. Those two cohort Q454 Chair: Presumably, from what you said earlier, groups need, in future, to be managed much more you could envisage one day the Head of the Civil holistically, so that you have more sense of a single Service being the Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet civil service. Office? Mr Maude: Yes, that would be compatible with this Q458 Lindsay Roy: So a professional training model. programme. Mr Maude: Yes, and careers developed in a much Q455 Chair: Depending upon the chemistry rather more proactive way. We need to get much better at than the physics? project management and change management. Mr Maude: Yes. Managing change has not been a great feature in the Civil Service. All the incentives are against change. Q456 Lindsay Roy: According to the 2011 People Lindsay Roy: But it needs to be. Survey, just over one in four civil servants feel that Mr Maude: I may have made this point to this change is managed effectively in the Civil Service. As Committee before: no one’s career ever suffered from a former headteacher and a school inspector, if I found continuing to preside over an inefficient status quo, that in a school I would be advocating special but plenty of people’s careers suffered from trying measures. Is that not a sad indictment of the something new that did not work, even if it was the leadership within Civil Service reform currently? right decision to try it. Ev 70 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP
Q459 Lindsay Roy: People are risk-averse. Mr Maude: You are completely right that Civil Mr Maude: Yes, they are, and the culture supports Service reform is much, much more about cultural and that. All the incentives and stimuli, including those behavioural change than structural change. There will that come from Westminster and the media, support be some structural change needed. We should look at the risk aversion, because every failure is deemed to whether the Civil Service can be flatter, structurally: be a culpable failure; for every failure there has to be that is quite complicated, technically, to do. What is a scapegoat. Until we get to a position where the NAO needed, as much as to make it structurally less and the Public Accounts Committee commend a civil hierarchical, is to make behaviour less hierarchical, so servant for trying something that did not work, when that responsibility cascades down as far as possible, as it was none the less the right thing to try—because we close to the front line as possible: that is behavioural. know the best organisations learn as much or more The cultural change will flow from behavioural from the things that are tried, but do not work as they change. Behavioural change is stimulated by do from the things that do work—we will still have incentives—I do not particularly mean financial ones, this stultifying culture that kills risk taking and but what gets rewarded in terms of how people are innovation. viewed, esteemed, and managed. That is difficult stuff to do. I do not pretend that we have the answers to Q460 Lindsay Roy: One of the few constants is that yet. We know we can describe what it should feel change. We should be changing all the time. like, look like, and how it should behave at the end of the process. Getting there is really, really difficult in Mr Maude: Yes, indeed, absolutely. any organisation. Q461 Lindsay Roy: It has been reported today that Q465 Lindsay Roy: Have you got some statistical the Cabinet Office has fallen short of a considerable targets over the next few years in terms of satisfaction number of key performance indicators, indeed more with the management of change? than any other. Mr Maude: No, but it is absolutely something that Mr Maude: That is because we had more than any should continue to be measured, as it is. It is a very other. good question; I am generally averse to rigid targets, but that we should aim to see significant improvement Q462 Lindsay Roy: More importantly, what are you in that metric in particular is a very good test. doing about it? Mr Maude: This was very early on in the first year of Q466 Lindsay Roy: And, indeed, more effective if it the Government. It is fair to say, although we had is done with people rather than to people? more that were missed, we also had more that were Mr Maude: Indeed, absolutely right. Behavioural hit than most Departments; we simply had more change only happens when people have bought into Structural Reform Plan actions. Just to be clear, these the change, not when it is imposed. Structural Reform Plans are to-do lists, and they very sensibly have dates attached to them, which we seek Q467 Chair: This is extremely interesting and to meet. It would be astonishing if you got exactly encouraging, but I do not know why you keep fighting right the time span for achieving all of them. On the this idea of setting out the “how to get there”, occasions I have been offered the option of doing particularly when you are saying yourself that this is something that would tick the box of meeting the time the bit that has been neglected and needs more oomph scale for the action, I have said, “No, I would rather behind it. Why are you still so opposed to a White we missed it”, and spent another month or two months Paper or just a short document, not even a White to ensure we got it right. I would rather do it right and Paper, giving guidance to Government Departments a bit late than wrong and on time. about all these things—flatter management structures, cultural change, less risk aversion—in order to try and Q463 Lindsay Roy: Is it the case that some people get the Civil Service that you want? are waiting for this new Civil Service Team to come Mr Maude: I am coming around to the idea of a paper into operation and a White Paper to take things of some sort. forward? I remember your last answer. Mr Maude: I have no aversion to White Papers. I Q468 Chair: I am very pleased to hear it. Sir Gus have been responsible for a number in my long and O’Donnell himself, when I asked him whether it chequered career. I do not think that another White would be easier if the Government articulated, in a Paper on Civil Service reform is the answer: the White Paper, a clear view of what they wanted the shelves of the library already groan with previous Civil Service to look like in three years’ time, said White Papers on Civil Service reform. What is lacking that was absolutely right, and it was quite possibly is Civil Service reform, not White Papers on Civil something they wanted to do with the new team. He Service reform. is retiring, however; he is a loose cannon now. Mr Maude: I have rarely seen a less loose cannon Q464 Lindsay Roy: Can I just pick up on one final than Sir Gus. Cannon definitely. point? You have mentioned structural change, but cultural change goes beyond structural change. How Q469 Chair: We will give you every support if you exactly are we going to get this move towards eventually agree with us. calculated risk? How are we going to change that Mr Maude: We do need to pull this together into a culture? single document. It will be quite short; it will not have Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 71
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP all of the “how to do it”, although it will have some Q474 Chair: We might benefit from more analysis as of it. to why Government Departments tend to behave in this sort of way before we propose solutions, because Q470 Chair: The “Open Public Services” White you may not be addressing the illness that exists. You Paper was long in aspiration, very short on how to do. are off to renegotiate the Directives tonight, I believe? Mr Maude: I agree. Mr Maude: I did that last week.
Q471 Alun Cairns: In terms of delivering the Q475 Chair: How do we know that is the problem if change, I want to bring it back to the structure that we have not analysed why Government Departments has been proposed. With a departmental Permanent behave in this way? Secretary also being the Head of the Civil Service, Mr Maude: It is not just Government Departments; how will you address a potential conflict of credibility this is fairly widespread across the pubic sector. We or of interest, whereby you want to drive a change know that they are behaving in that way far too much, through the whole of the Civil Service, but the Head not by any means universally. The way in which the of the Civil Service, because he or she is a work programme contracts were tendered and led was departmental Permanent Secretary, may well be poor a model of the better way of doing it: a lot of on those key performance indicators? engagement with suppliers beforehand, a procurement Mr Maude: Sir Bob would, I think, agree with this, process that was conducted pretty quickly. It was a although we do not necessarily show this currently: good process. It is not universally bad. I am less we will want both the Cabinet Office, where a lot of interested in why it has been done wrong than in the work on Civil Service reform will sit, and Sir having concluded that it has been done wrong and that there is a better way of doing it. Bob’s own Department to be exemplars in the kind of culture and behaviours we want to see spread more widely in the future. Q476 Chair: We are very interested in why it has been done wrong; would you do some analysis for us and let us know what you think about it? Q472 Chair: Minister, moving on to procurement, in Mr Maude: I could do, if that is a subject of interest your speech last week you talked about “ending the to you. public sector’s short-sighted and risk-averse approach to business”. Why is the public sector short-sighted Q477 Chair: It certainly is. and risk-averse? Mr Maude: We have done some work on it, but it is Mr Maude: In the public sector we have tended to mainly a cultural thing—this is the comfort zone; this interpret the EU public procurement rules in an is the way we do it. It has had a double ill-effect: extremely legalistic way. because we freeze out of these processes a number of newer and smaller suppliers, we have a less Q473 Chair: But why? competitive supplier base and get less good value for Mr Maude: I do not know. I really do not know. It is money, but we also militate against the interests of a comfort zone. It is unchallenging. Following the rule UK-based suppliers. book and saying, “We put out a request for a Chair: I think we are still interested why. prequalification questionnaire, we have done all the notices, we have gone through the process, no one can Q478 Charlie Elphicke: Looking at your speech of criticise us” is an easier thing to do, and it is in a 21 November, as the Chairman has said, you say we comfort zone because you can show you have done it have been over-interpreting laws. That very evening all. It is much more difficult to do the kind of thing you hop on the Eurostar and go to Brussels to bang we are talking about now, which is for the people the table for radical simplification. What is it really: responsible for delivery of whatever it is to go out, is it gold plating, over-interpreting at home, or is it engage in a confident and knowledgeable way with that the European law is too inflexible? suppliers, to make sure they know what is coming. Mr Maude: Let me be absolutely clear that, even That is why we have said we are going to put out the within the Directives as they are, we could do things pipelines in a lot of key areas—we have already done radically better. In France and Germany, they run it in two areas; we will do it with the construction these processes much better, they engage much more pipeline and then with others up to April of next proactively with suppliers. There was this myth year—so suppliers can see what the forward pipeline around, and it took me some time to grasp that this of business is. myth was prevalent, that it is somehow illegal to talk You then need those in the commissioning/procuring to suppliers. It is complete rubbish: not only is it bit of the public sector to be able to engage with those completely legal, it is very desirable. Within the suppliers; talk them through what we want; get back Directives as they are, there is scope for us to do much from the suppliers ideas for how the project can be better. It is not that we have gold-plated them into our defined in the most sensible way; get a sense of what own law, it is simply that the practice around the way the possibilities are for doing it very differently; allow we do it has effectively added gold-plating on to them. us to refine our needs, so we concentrate on the The changes that are being canvassed in the European outputs and outcomes, not the detailed inputs. If we Commission are around two things. First, the concentrate on the what, not the how, that is where Commission itself started a consultation earlier this you allow innovative suppliers to provide radically year/late last year on streamlining the Directives. The different and innovative ways of delivering services. Commission itself takes the view that it is still process Ev 72 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP heavy: there is an irreducible minimum—if my competitive tension in the supplier market. That is recollection is right—of 18 weeks, and you cannot widely understood, and you will see that reflected in currently compress to less than that. We all take the the ICT implementation strategy. view—this is not a matter of controversy—that it can be done more effectively and in a more streamlined Q482 Charlie Elphicke: You have talked a very way than that. good game in the Cabinet Office, but the Cabinet The other thing where we are urging change is to Office is the Cabinet Office; there are 17 other allow, maybe for a limited period, a route for public Departments around Whitehall. How are you going to service mutuals to be formed and to carry on get them all to dance to your tune, and ensure that we delivering the service on a negotiated basis, rather get effective procurement reform across the whole than a competed basis. That would be for a limited piece? period; after three years it would have to be competed Mr Maude: We can do a certain amount by diktat on an open basis. In this growing sector, where we are within central Government, and we will. It has got ahead of the rest of Europe in encouraging and better, but I have no illusion that there is more to go. allowing this—but there is a great deal of interest We now have a rule that, in central Government, no elsewhere in it—it would allow many more of these Department or Agency can take on consultants to to come into existence and be on a fast slipway out of conduct a procurement without my personal consent. the public sector into the social enterprise or private When I see one of those requests I look at how the enterprise sector, all on the basis of being employee- procurement is intended to be conducted—whether it led. We could see a very significant growth in those is an old style or a new style procurement. It is not a sectors, and we already see huge productivity dogmatic rule that you cannot hire consultants, but increases in the mutuals that have been created in that one of the things that has perpetuated the old way of way. There might be interest in that path being doing things has been the use of consultants, which, pursued. again, has been a bit of comfort zone. In central Government, I hope relatively soon, we will Q479 Charlie Elphicke: The Committee previously start to see these things improve. There is a bigger wrote a report about the cartel that exists in IT issue with the wider public sector. In local government procurement. They are supported by a bunch of you will find massive differences. I cited in my speech lobbyists called Intellect, who assist them in what the example of a big local authority very sensibly amounts, in our view, to price gouging of a really outsourcing its children’s services, but doing it on a serious and disgraceful magnitude. Is it not essential county-wide basis, with a single contract; a national that we use any public procurement reform on the one charity that is bidding to be the service provider told hand to ensure that you cannot get cartels developing me it had already spent £800,000 in bidding before to hold the Government to ransom, but also to ensure even the formal tender process had started. That is that the contracts are small enough to enable a more wrong: that is doing it in the old way. competitive environment, so that smaller, more It is better to break these things up into smaller innovative, and exciting enterprises can have a go at contracts, to be less prescriptive about how the work winning contracts? is to be carried out, and to focus more on the what, Mr Maude: If Intellect were here, they would say that the outputs and outcomes, rather than how it is to be the majority of their members, by a large margin, are done. Then we will see more ability for smaller small and medium-sized enterprises, not big. providers, particularly providers from the voluntary, charitable and social enterprise sectors, to succeed in Q480 Charlie Elphicke: They do not represent them winning that kind of business. though, do they? Mr Maude: You would have to ask them that. Q483 Robert Halfon: Can I just pick you up on something you said about public procurement? I agree Q481 Charlie Elphicke: They are not the ones who with you that the Government is often legalistic. Can get the contracts either. you explain why, if this is true, the Cabinet Office Mr Maude: Some do, but I totally agree that not propose that companies bidding for public enough do. I agree with all your other points. We need procurement should be compelled to have at least one to break up the contracts much more. One thing that or two apprentices? has been particularly unsatisfactory is the tendency Mr Maude: I am very much opposed to freighting with these big ICT contracts for the systems integrator public procurement with wider policy objectives. I to hold a contract for one or more of the services as want public procurement to be overwhelmingly about well. We are looking to establish a presumption delivering public services in the best way at the least against that being the case; a firm that holds a systems cost. There has been a tendency in the past for integrator contract for a Department or an Agency Governments to see public procurement as a tool to should not also be able to hold the service contract. deliver wider policy objectives, in the same way that We are also looking at how some of the functions spending money, legislating, regulating are tools to often outsourced to a systems integrator should be deliver policy objectives, and we should oppose that. carried out in-house. In some Departments, the CIO function has become very depleted, and there needs to Q484 Robert Halfon: Can I just come in on this? If be, in the future, much more capability of those in you look at the Cabinet Office numbers on total house to scan the market, engage with suppliers, see volume of public procurement, and only one where the new suppliers come from, keep some apprentice was employed for every £1 million of Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 73
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP public procurement, that would probably create about Q488 Charlie Elphicke: May I ask you about the 230,000-odd apprentices. That would cut youth Commissioning Academy? There was a thing called unemployment by a quarter. Isn’t that worth it, given the National School of Government, which seems to what you have just said? Why should you not use be closing. public procurement to achieve policy objectives if Mr Maude: It is. something like that would be pretty simple to do, and would transform our youth unemployment landscape? Q489 Charlie Elphicke: But you are opening a Mr Maude: I am afraid I am a purist in this. I want commissioning academy. lots of firms—whether they are Government suppliers Mr Maude: I have described it as a virtual or not—to take on apprentices. I want suppliers to commissioning academy. Government to have highly trained work forces, trained to the right level to deliver services to the Q490 Charlie Elphicke: Does it exist, or does it quality that we have specified. How they do that has virtually exist? to be for them. Once you start overlaying the contracts Mr Maude: It is, at this stage, no more than a twinkle with the requirement that suppliers have to do things in my eye. However, next year we will open, in in a particular way, such as that they have to take on a connection with one of the major business schools, a certain number of apprentices, you are locking them— Major Projects Leadership Academy, because we are maybe only in small way; I appreciate there is a wider fed up with a constant flow of big projects that have benefit—into ways of doing things, which may not be failed because of a lack of ability in Government to the right way to do it. manage big projects successfully.
Q485 Robert Halfon: It is done already. Take a local Q491 Charlie Elphicke: The Commissioning Academy will be fleet of foot; it will not be yet example: if a developer wants to build a housing another quango. project, in order to get that contract they have to fulfil Mr Maude: Certainly not. No, I would be allergic to community objectives, fund sports centres, or that. We are working on how it is done. To be clear, whatever it might be. Given that we face an economic the aim is to equip people in the public sector who are crisis and a youth unemployment crisis, this is a very currently line managers or policy officials to do what worthy objective. Given that companies who get was done very successfully with the Work public procurement projects are, in essence, benefiting Programme, which was to go out and engage with the from the taxpayer, surely they should then give supplier network. You do not need to be God’s gift to something back to the taxpayer. For those individual commerce to do it, but you need to be comfortable companies to hire at least one apprentice is pretty engaging with suppliers, not intimidated, and small beer. knowledgeable enough to be able then to do what Mr Maude: I am sure it would be, but if you have public officials tend to be quite good at, which is one pint of small beer, then others get added on, it refining what a project should be. Then you have a becomes quite a large beer by the end of that procurement process, which is rightly managed by metaphor, for these purposes. One does not want to specialist procurement professionals. be excessively dogmatic about it, but we really have You have then got the aftercare part of it, which is the to be very careful. I do not think your analogy with a contract management. If, as I hope, we go down the housing developer is quite apt, with respect. What you path set out in the “Open Public Services” White are talking about there is effectively the planning gain, Paper, of a much larger proportion of public services which needs to be deployed into something that is for not being delivered by the public sector but being the community benefit. That is not about taxpayer’s delivered by a range of other organisations—whether money; that is about gaining something for the they be private enterprise, mutuals, voluntary, community as part of the developer’s upside in the charitable or social enterprises—then the people who development. When you talk about suppliers giving are currently line managers managing the delivery of something back to the taxpayer, what the taxpayer services in a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure need wants is the service to be provided in the best way for to get the skills to be commissioners and contract the least cost. managers. Those skills are scarce in the public sector, but the people who are currently line managers are, for the most part, perfectly capable of acquiring the Q486 Robert Halfon: They would get that service, skills to be effective commissioners and contract and you would have also saved the Exchequer money, managers. However, it is a different mindset, and a because there would be a fall in youth unemployment. different skill set. Mr Maude: It would not save the Exchequer money. This is not something the supplier puts back; this is Q492 Charlie Elphicke: Can you assure us that your something the supplier then asks the taxpayer to pay academy would be more like an apprenticeship than for as part of the cost of providing the service. classroom-based: people would learn skills on the job, and have that help in practical commissioning, not just Q487 Robert Halfon: They would not be allowed to be taught some theory lesson, which they will forget do that; it would be part of the contract that they and not really connect with? would have to employ an apprentice. Mr Maude: I would not want to design it on the hoof Mr Maude: I promise you it just goes into the price: now I am here, but the best transfer of skills, as will is not a free good. be the case with the Project Management Academy, Ev 74 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP will be operating alongside people who have done it, a very, very important service that has to retain direct whether it is learning on the job or in the classroom. public accountability, for the safety of children If it is done in a classroom, then the teachers need to particularly? be people who have done it—not theoreticians but Mr Maude: The importance of a service should not be practitioners. correlated with whether it is in-house or outsourced. I regard GPs as providing a service of huge importance, Q493 Chair: It is ironic, is it not, Minister, that you and yet from the inception of the National Health are winding up the National School of Government as Service that service has been outsourced. They are part of the quangos cadre, but then we identify gaps private contractors to the Health Service, yet they in the training of civil servants that we have yet to would not be more accountable if they were part of a address? single bureaucratic structure. Mr Maude: I do not think it is particularly ironic. The National School of Government is an outdated model. Q500 Kelvin Hopkins: They have a professional It is very residential in its approach. tradition that goes back a long time. I would like to hear that you are not going to follow the New Labour Q494 Chair: Can you think of any organisation of view, which was that things must be outsourced at 400,000 people that does not have its own in-house all costs. We have had private care homes. It is still training capability? happening now; local authorities are effectively Mr Maude: There will be some in-house training having their arms twisted to get their care homes into capability, but most of the training in professional the private sector—I have two threatened with closure services organisations is conducted by practitioners, in my own constituency now—and using legislative not by trainers. tricks to ensure that happens, and we finish up with Southern Cross. Is that not the direction? Would this Q495 Chair: At risk of perhaps over-gambling on the Government start to think twice about that kind of success we have had so far today, if we have this piece drive towards outsourcing and privatisation? of paper about the direction the Civil Service is going Mr Maude: I certainly do not take a dogmatic view to take, could it also address the training strategy for that says: public sector bad; private sector good. I the Civil Service? have said before that the old binary choice between Mr Maude: Yes, indeed. When Bob Kerslake has his delivering services in-house in a monolithic, public feet under his new desk, you may want perhaps to sector provider, or being totally outsourced to a hear from him and the head of Civil Service Learning. for-profit, commercial provider is behind us. There is The National School of Government is a bit of a a much more interesting array of choices available to sideshow for these purposes. We have placed the large us, including some new models of delivery: employee numbers of people who are engaged in delivering mutuals or voluntary, charitable and social-enterprise Civil Service Learning—there are many, many people providers, which are not public sector options, but nor doing it—so it is led in one place and is delivered are they for-profit private sector providers. I would be more holistically across the Civil Service. The much more open to different ways of doing things. National School of Government was not delivering Nor do I exclude things that are currently outsourced training in a holistic way across the Civil Service. occasionally being insourced. I mentioned earlier that in many cases the CIO capability in departments and Q496 Charlie Elphicke: When it is more than a agencies has been excessively outsourced, and we twinkle in your eye, would it be possible to have need to bring some of that back in house. I do not information on the commissioning academy, because take a dogmatic view about this, but there is a broad having heard what you have to say I completely agree political consensus, both in the coalition Government that it has the power to save extraordinarily large and in your party, against the old idea that public amounts of money if it works. services have to be delivered by the public sector. Mr Maude: Yes. That will inevitably lead to the opening up of public services to a wider range of providers. Q497 Charlie Elphicke: It is a really good idea that is worth pursuing. Q501 Kelvin Hopkins: The previous Government Mr Maude: Thank you. I take that as encouragement. were insistent on driving, for example, local authority Chair: We seek to encourage. housing into ALMOs and housing associations, those housing associations gaining size and seeking to Q498 Kelvin Hopkins: We live in an age when there become private housing corporations quoted on the is an obsession, or at least a fashion, for outsourcing, Stock Exchange. I know that is the ambition of at and yet we have many examples in the past, and even least one leader of a housing association with former now, of very good in-house services that ought to be council housing in his portfolio. That is not the driver preserved. Do the Government accept that some of your Government. things will stay in-house if that is the best way of Mr Maude: On that particular area, you would have delivering them? to talk to my colleagues Eric Pickles and Grant Mr Maude: Yes. Totally. Shapps. That we need in the new world less to be delivered directly by the public sector I have no doubt, Q499 Kelvin Hopkins: At a local level you talked and I do not think there is much contention. This is about children’s services being outsourced to other not controversial in the way that 20 years ago it was organisations. Does that not reduce accountability in controversial. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 75
28 November 2011 Rt Hon Francis Maude MP
Kelvin Hopkins: I might take a different view myself. Mr Maude: You have worn me down. Chair: We will continue to press you on others. Q502 Chair: Minister, thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much indeed. It has been an interesting and varied session, and I think you are beginning to see eye to eye with the Committee on some things. Ev 76 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
Monday 19 December 2011
Members present: Mr Bernard Jenkin (Chair)
Paul Flynn Greg Mulholland Kelvin Hopkins Priti Patel ______
Examination of Witness
Witness: Sir Bob Kerslake, Permanent Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government, gave evidence.
Q503 Chair: Welcome to this final evidence session Sir Bob Kerslake: In most organisations you perform on the future role of the Head of the Civil Service. the leadership role through a combination of direction Could you identify yourself for the record? and influence. I very much see a key part of this job Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes, I am Bob Kerslake, Permanent being to bring together the senior leadership of the Secretary of DCLG and soon to also be Head of the civil service and get them behind a major programme Civil Service. of change as identified by Ministers and the Government. Q504 Chair: Thank you. You very kindly sent us a So the first stage is to identify the “what”: what is it letter. I wonder if it would be helpful if you could that we think needs to change? A lot of work here make a few points about your letter before we start has been done by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, our questions. Francis Maude. Your own Committee has done a lot Sir Bob Kerslake: There are two or three things to of thinking about these issues and we need to pull all say. Firstly, I am very excited about taking on the role this together with other views to form an agenda for of Head of the Civil Service. It plays particularly to change, which as the Minister for the Cabinet Office my own experience of being involved in leading and told you last time he was here, will be available by managing big organisations. As I said in the letter, the spring. what I bring to the role is a combination of having The second part is the “how”: how do we organise the spent a long time in public service, often dealing with resources to deliver? I don’t think that is about the civil servants, and now having spent over a year responsibility for direction, although there clearly are working as a Permanent Secretary. So I have a some areas where direction is appropriate. As much combination of having been in the civil service long as anything, it is about harnessing the capacity of the enough to see its considerable strengths but not so civil service to get behind a clear and identified long that I cannot also see the areas where it needs to change programme. One part of the leverage I have is focus on for improvement. to draw on the resources from the Cabinet Office The second thing I would say is what the role is about. teams that work specifically on this. So, for example, I think it about two key things: first of all providing the civil service reform team will report pretty much visible leadership for the civil service, including directly to me. Secondly I also take on a role of taking responsibility for performance management of performance-managing many of the Permanent a number of the Permanent Secretaries, but it is also Secretaries and I would expect, as part of that about being the champion of change. It is clear to me performance management, to assess them on how that whilst the Civil Service has great strengths it also much they have played a part in leading the change has areas that it needs to change, not least because the process that I have talked about. So there are plenty world around it is changing and we need to respond of levers here to be effective in the role. to that. A final point I would make before we go over into questions is that we have sent you some information Q506 Chair: It sounds more like an act of persuasion on respective roles and responsibilities between than an act of leadership. myself and the Cabinet Secretary. What I would say Sir Bob Kerslake: It is a combination of the two. is that the things we do together are as important as Many people would say that good leaders are also the things we do distinctively. We think that it sets out very good at persuasion. Good leadership is both a a pretty clear description of those roles but inevitably combination of leading by direction and leading by it is work in progress and we will build and develop influence and argument. It is both, but you must not that as we go into our new roles in the new year. I underestimate the importance of the second part of it. will stop there and invite questions. Q507 Chair: Do you expect to be as influential as, Q505 Chair: Thank you very much. The emphasis of say, the Secretary of State in that Department? all this is very much on leadership, and your Sir Bob Kerslake: I think I will be influential in my leadership. How does that leadership work? The role, as has been the case for any Head of the Civil Government has just rejected our proposal to make Service, in driving change in the civil service. As I Cabinet Office more like an operational headquarters said earlier, I see the job as having two parts. The of Government; how does leadership work if you do reason I was interested in the job, alongside being not have the authority to direct? visible, is that it has a change dimension to it. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 77
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake
Q508 Chair: How do you avoid your priorities and Q512 Chair: How will you measure your success in your agenda being the second-tier priority compared delivering these priorities? to the Secretary of State’s agenda, which is likely to Sir Bob Kerslake: My success will come from a be much more day-to-day and much more pressing? number of things; it will not be one measure. One part Sir Bob Kerslake: Many of the things that will be of my success will come from the visible leadership on the Secretary of State’s agenda for change—better point. I cannot be known by every civil servant but I programme management, more flexible ways of can be known of, and the sense in which I have been working, a strong senior civil service cadre and flatter able to communicate across the civil service what the structures—are things that are most effectively agenda is for the civil service, what it is strong on and implemented if they are done in a coordinated way what it should be recognised for as doing well, but across the civil service. Part of the argument to also on what it needs to change. Secretaries of State is, “You all have goals and The first test is whether I have achieved a level of ambitions for your Department; you have to save visibility across the civil service about what I do and money and deliver more efficiently. You are likely to what the change agenda is. That is the first test. The be able to deliver many of those goals as effectively, second test is one you alluded to. I work in fact more so, by collaborative working across the collaboratively with the Cabinet Secretary on a shared civil service.” A good example of this is support agenda for change in the civil service. A third test will service costs. If we are going to drive down the costs be that we are strengthening the capacity of the civil and improve the efficiency of support services, it is service to deliver on the Government’s agenda, which likely to be much more effective if this is done is after all the most critical part of my job. A fourth through a shared service model. The argument here is test will be whether I have put in place effective not whether it is about Ministers or corporate performance management arrangements that ensure leadership of the civil service. Actually, you deliver that I know how individual Permanent Secretaries are Ministers’ objectives through effective corporate performing. The final test is that I have harnessed the leadership. capability and capacity of the senior civil service on an agenda for change. Those would be the things I would pick out. Q509 Chair: You will only have relationships with Chair: Those were five very crucial tests. some of the Permanent Secretaries, who have a direct report to you. Is your leadership and influence in some Q513 Paul Flynn: Who is the enforcer of the way limited to the delivery Departments rather than Ministerial Code? the cross-cutting Departments? Sir Bob Kerslake: The enforcer in terms of Ministers Sir Bob Kerslake: I will have a relationship with all will be the Cabinet Secretary. My role would be in Permanent Secretaries in one way or another, not least relation to the Civil Service Code. because they attend the regular weekly meetings we have and they are likely to be participants in the cross- Q514 Paul Flynn: What does Sir Philip Mawer do Whitehall civil servant groups that we have in the then? future. So this is not simply a question of having a Sir Bob Kerslake: As you know, there is a change relationship with those who report to me. I will also being made there. In terms of who is the guardian of link in with other Permanent Secretaries as well and the code, it lies with the Cabinet Secretary, and clearly they will be part of leading the change agenda that I the successor to Sir Philip Mawer will play a key part have spoken about. What I am saying is that a specific in the case of where there are issues to be investigated. lever that I have and that Jeremy has is through our performance management responsibility. So it is not Q515 Paul Flynn: It seems to say in the Ministerial just going to be just a relationship with those that Code that the sole enforcer is the holder of the office report to me. that Sir Philip Mawer holds now. No? Sir Bob Kerslake: He clearly has a key role in terms Q510 Chair: There must be a qualitative difference of enforcing the code, but I thought your question was in the relationship between those who report to you about who, between myself and the Cabinet Secretary, and those who do not. How will you define that took that lead role. I am quite clear that, on ministerial difference? matters, the Cabinet Secretary would be undertaking Sir Bob Kerslake: I think there is a difference, clearly the investigation. because in relation to their performance I am taking a direct role. This is a key point: if we have agreed an Q516 Paul Flynn: In the Fox/Werritty affair, there agenda for change, this will be something that I have was evidence that civil servants from his Department signed up to and so also has Jeremy. Between the two had expressed their unhappiness to Liam Fox about of us, we will performance-manage all of the his conduct, but did not pass that on outside the Permanent Secretaries. In that sense, every Permanent Department. Is this how they should behave? Secretary will still be held accountable for their Sir Bob Kerslake: In his review of the issues, Sir Gus contribution towards the change agenda, either though made it clear that effective communication of issues my performance management role or that of Jeremy. arising in Departments through to the Cabinet Secretary is an important part of the system here. Q511 Chair: So it is very dependent upon you two being held in parity of esteem. Q517 Paul Flynn: In that particular case, and in Sir Bob Kerslake: Absolutely, yes. another issue that was less important involving your Ev 78 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake
Department, it was suggested that Ministers can and that is something we have had discussions on divide themselves in two. On some occasions, they already. Is it yet in the form of a detailed programme? can behave privately; on other occasions, they can The answer is not yet. As I said at the beginning, work behave ministerially. The occasion with your is in progress at this stage. Neither of us has formally Department involved the Secretary of State, who had started our jobs, but we have talked about moving a meal provided by Bell Pottinger, which could have fairly quickly towards agreeing a programme of been thought to be a lobbyist. The firm at the meal activity. The key point here is to sort out the “what”: was seeking some favour with his Department, but he what the programme for change is, building on what claimed that he was eating privately that night and not the MCO and others have said. That is something you ministerially. There is a rather serious issue involved would certainly want to see in place no later than the in the Fox/Werritty affair, where the Secretary of spring. State, Werritty and one British official spoke to a Once we have that, we can very clearly identify the group of Israelis who, according to The milestones and measures of success on the change Daily Telegraph political correspondent, were programme. The first stage is to establish that very Mossad, which is a matter of some interest, I would clear programme. That does not mean to say—as a have thought, given the fact that we might be moving last point to make here—that everything waits for that. to a war with Iran. There is already a huge amount of change going on Chair: Can we just get to a substantive question? across the civil service. That will carry on. Paul Flynn: I have to give that background, I am Specifically on your question of whether we have afraid, to make sense of this. Do you think that, in the worked through a detailed programme yet, the answer circumstances, there should not be a division between is not yet, and that is something we will work on somebody eating or having meetings privately or together in the new year. ministerially? Sir Bob Kerslake: There are two or three points to Q519 Priti Patel: Do you view this as an ambitious make on this. The first point to make is there is a programme of change? distinction between an event that somebody is going Sir Bob Kerslake: What is going on already is pretty to in a private capacity or in their capacity as an MP, ambitious. If you talk to individual Permanent which is different from their capacity as a Minister. Secretaries about the scale of change they are making, As you know, the judgement on that issue ultimately the scale of reductions, the changes in role and the lies with the Minister to make, but they very often do changes in the way services are provided, there is no so with advice and discussion with their private office. question that it is already an ambitious programme. There are clearly different ways in which such What we would not want to do is cut across that meetings are handled. If it is a meeting as a Minister, change programme, because that is a big task in itself. they will get a briefing and, very often, in most cases, It is to find the ways in which the civil service itself someone from the private office will attend that needs to change, so it absolutely has the capacity and meeting. resources to deliver that change well. It is definitely What I think we found in the Werritty case, if you an ambitious programme that will test the civil service look at the recommendations from Sir Gus, he said across the piece. that, if there are meetings where substantive issues of departmental business are discussed, clearly someone Q520 Priti Patel: In your letter to us, you indicated from the private office should be there. At the very your two roles. We would be quite interested to hear least, the meeting should be reported back. So I think about the management between the two roles and the there is a difference between the two types of meeting. risks identified in undertaking these two parallel roles. What I think emerged in the Werritty review was that How do you intend to manage these risks? Can we where a meeting occurs that palpably may have have more of an insight from you about how you started as, or was thought to be, a private meeting but envisage the use of your time, obviously within moves into departmental business, there has to be a DCLG but also around this ambitious project of reference back. I do not think you can drop the leadership and change in which you will be heavily distinction between the two, but it needs handling with involved? care. If you move into a different situation, you need Sir Bob Kerslake: That is a very good question. The to be aware of it. first thing to say, and this is quite important in a way, is that there is a lot of misunderstanding in asking Q518 Priti Patel: May I come back on the agenda whether I am doing this job as Head of the Civil for change and the objectives you highlighted to the Service part time. The truth is it has been a part-time Chairman? Are you aligned with the Cabinet job almost since its inception. It has always been Secretary on those five areas that you highlighted in shared with another responsibility, either another terms of objectives? Is that something that you have Permanent Secretary’s responsibility, if you go back both jointly signed up to? Do you have a working before 1981, or alternatively it was parked alongside programme going forward or a timeframe for delivery the Cabinet Secretary role. It has always been a shared of the objectives? When do you hope to see progress job; it is just that now it is being a shared job in a by? Do you have milestones of progress? What kind different way. of immediate or significant differences do you expect Where do the risks come and how am I managing to see and by when? them? Obviously one of the risks is that I put too Sir Bob Kerslake: Are we agreed on the key priorities much time into one or other aspect of the job to the of the areas on which we want to work? Absolutely, detriment of the other job. I am absolutely clear in my Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 79
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake mind that I can and will do justice to both jobs. I am major Bill for the Localism Act; we have undertaken absolutely clear about that. The way I think I am a very substantial restructuring and reduced the going to do that is through putting in place some very number of posts by 37%. Quite a lot of the building clear arrangements. First of all, I am clear that I will blocks for change in DCLG are in place now. That is do around two days a week as Head of the Civil not to say that the whole job is done, of course, but Service. I have identified broadly which two days they that will have helped to create the flexibility I need. are likely to be every week. I have also identified which of the things I do in the Department I will now Q522 Priti Patel: Can I just ask one final question? look to my deputy, David Prout, to do on my behalf I am genuinely intrigued by the two roles you will be and which I will retain. I have gone through each of managing. Have you thought about how many hours the things that I do and divided them up in that way. a week you will be working in total across those two Alongside that, I have been very clear that I cannot Departments? do the job unless I have good support for the role. Sir Bob Kerslake: No. I have never counted the Two or three things are happening there. First of all, number of hours I do, but I am used to working pretty I will have a shared private office with the Cabinet long weeks and hours, as is anybody at a senior level. Secretary. We will be located in two rooms alongside That is unlikely to change in this new role. each other in the Cabinet Office with our private office right next to us. There is a very clear arrangement for Q523 Chair: Just moving to the costs of all this, we that. I also have a team within the Cabinet Office that are advised—and I have been tabling a number of will head up the civil service reform programme to questions—that it is the intention that these changes support me. We are going to strengthen some of the at the top of the civil service should be cost-neutral. capacity of things like communications as well, which Is that your understanding? are a key part of visible leadership. So I will make Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes, it is. I am confident we will absolutely sure that I have strong support deliver that as well. arrangements, both from the Cabinet Office to support me in that role, and within CLG. Q524 Chair: Does that include any additional The final thing, as I touched on earlier, is that I am seniority given to your Directors-General in your clear that the job of Head of the Civil Service cannot own Department? be done by me alone. I have to draw in other Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes. Permanent Secretary colleagues to lead large sections of that change programme. My job is to orchestrate Q525 Chair: Will they be paid for that? that and provide overall leadership. In all those ways, Sir Bob Kerslake: There is no intention to pay lots of I will make sure I keep both jobs effectively covered. extra money to the DGs. Where they take on One of the things I do is to meet regularly with particular additional tasks, we will deal with those as Ministers in CLG. I will get their feedback directly as they arise, but we are not giving an across-the-board to whether or not things are falling between the increase of salaries here. cracks. Q526 Priti Patel: Just out of interest, are there any Q521 Priti Patel: Do you envisage spending a performance reward schemes in terms of the role you disproportionate amount of time in the early days will be taking on? For example, if you meet your being spent in your role as Head of the Civil Service, objectives, you are ahead of time and you have while strategically you get plans up and running? You already brought about great change in a good period have mentioned two days a week in that role, but of time, although we hear it is supposed to be cost- obviously once you start to get the plans going, you neutral, are you aware of any bonuses that may come have objectives and work things through—do you your way off the back of it? think that could increase to the detriment of DCLG? I Sir Bob Kerslake: As far as the current job is know you have just outlined the support you will have concerned at DCLG that did not involve a bonus at DCLG and that your deputy will take on key scheme. I would envisage that the Head of the Civil functions as well, but do you think there is enough Service role would be covered by the wider senior flexibility, not just in terms of your work and approach civil service bonus scheme, but the details of that have but within the two jobs that you have, so that if one to be worked through. is slightly more demanding at one particular time then you will have the flexibility to switch over? Q527 Priti Patel: In previous witness sessions, we Sir Bob Kerslake: I think so. I should have have heard concerns about the seniority of the post of mentioned, in terms of support, that we are also the Head of the Civil Service compared to that of the moving to recruit a post that this Committee was very Cabinet Secretary. Do you have any views on that at keen to see in place, which is a Director-General of all, or any concerns? If so, how do you think you Civil Service Reform, so we will put that in place. I would be able to address them within the environment think you are right that the early period may require you are going to be working in? more time to get things up and running as the Head Sir Bob Kerslake: Bluntly, I don’t have any concerns of the Civil Service, but I will be very determined to about that issue, going into the job. We are on the keep the balance right, even allowing for that. There same level. We both report to the Prime Minister. We is enough flexibility here, partly because we have both have access to the Prime Minister in terms of undergone a lot of the big changes in DCLG in the issues. We both have an ability to attend Cabinet last year. For example, we have taken through the meetings. We will both be on the same salary. We will Ev 80 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake be sharing a private office. Going into the job, I don’t to be delivered collectively. In my view, yes, there have any concerns about it at all. The test of it, in the will be frustrations and issues that come up along the end, will be whether I perform the job well. That will way. Frankly, it is hard to see what those will be demonstrate the status of the role against the Cabinet initially but, because of the underlying imperative, I Secretary, but it is not an issue that is a concern for think we will overcome them. me. Q530 Kelvin Hopkins: Sir Bob, you are to line- Q528 Priti Patel: Do you feel—I am genuinely manage Permanent Secretaries’ of delivery interested in this—that, come what may in terms of Departments, while the Cabinet Secretary is to line- giving advice, strategic leadership and dealing with manage Permanent Secretaries from cross-cutting some of the challenging aspects around change, both Departments. Which Departments will have within the civil service and at the levels of other senior Permanent Secretaries reporting to you and how will leaders and Permanent Secretaries as well, you will your relationship work in practice with the be able to bridge any hostility, difficult questions and cross-cutting Permanent Secretaries whom you do not challenges around the cultural change that you are line-manage? looking to bring in? On the other side of the coin, Sir Bob Kerslake: I don’t have the full list, but I am you are equal with the Cabinet Secretary. Do you feel happy to supply that to you, if that is what you want. comfortable and able enough to speak your mind I have a list of who that constitutes but, essentially, it openly to, for example, the Prime Minister and the covers the major delivery Departments that you would Deputy Prime Minister on some quite challenging expect it to cover—Health, DEFRA, Defence and so issues and areas? on. I will give you the full list of them rather than reel Sir Bob Kerslake: On the first question, which was them off now. around whether I would be able to command support and agreement from Permanent Secretaries, I do think Q531 Chair: Could you give us that list in due that will come. Since getting the job, I have spent course, because we have had an indication but we quite a bit of time going around and meeting don’t feel we have had the definitive version? Permanent Secretaries individually, getting their view Sir Bob Kerslake: I am happy to do that; it will take of the world. There is a considerable appetite both to me five minutes to do that. Your second point is have a clear change programme and to deliver it similar to the question that the Chair raised earlier. together. That is a strong message that I pick up. The point to make here is first of all, the agenda we Clearly each Permanent Secretary will have their own move forward on will be one that is shared between agendas in their own Departments, but there is no myself and the Cabinet Secretary, so we will have dual sense of people saying, “We want to do it on our own. ability to lever responses here. Secondly, it is not We will go alone and we are not interested in working necessary to have every one of those Permanent collaboratively.” I have not experienced any of that. Secretaries reporting to me for me to have a To a large part, that is a testament to what Sir Gus has relationship with them on the change agenda. It might achieved in this last period. I start from quite a strong perhaps be easier if I give you an example. The position of acceptance of collective leadership in Permanent Secretary at the Treasury will not report to moving forward. me, because that is one of the cross-cutting ones who On your second question about giving clear and will report to the Cabinet Secretary, but the Permanent honest advice to Ministers, if I cannot do it there is a Secretary of the Treasury will be on the Civil Service problem, because it is part of the code and I would Board that we have, which I will chair, and will expect to be able to do that as clearly and as honestly contribute to that board. I don’t think it is necessary as I do to my current Secretary of State. to have everyone line-managed by me to have a relationship with them. It is perfectly possible to make Q529 Priti Patel: Can I just come back to the first it work. point, in terms of the discussions and being the advocate for change across the civil service? We have Q532 Kelvin Hopkins: A thought occurs to me: isn’t had previous witnesses who have referred to the it rather important to have a role managing the big culture, the siloised mentality across Departments and important Departments like the Treasury? The the fact that that is just the way it is, basically. There Treasury is so important. Having that taken out of is not enough collaborative working. In the your purview, so to speak— discussions you have had thus far are there any major Sir Bob Kerslake: I don’t think it was taken out. It barriers, obstacles or hurdles that you can envisage was always clear when we set up the posts and they that have come to light already, which you can share were advertised that we would share the responsibility with us? of performance-managing Permanent Secretaries. If Sir Bob Kerslake: I have not picked up anything that you think about the numbers involved here that makes cannot be overcome. Of course every institution has absolute sense. Having come to that conclusion as part inherited ways of behaving which we have to work of the recruitment process, you then have to decide on. What gives me confidence about this change how best to divide it. There is no scientific answer to agenda is that it is not just about internal drivers; there that. We felt collectively, when we spoke about this, are external drivers as well. The drive for better value that the best way of doing it was to have a clear for money, the expectations of Government and the distinction between those that were the major service public—all of these things push you towards Departments, if you like, and the cross-cutting recognising an agenda for change and the need for it Departments. It was always part of the plan to share Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 81
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake that responsibility, if nothing else than for practical political priorities tell them to do. The old tramlines reasons; it would be incredibly hard for one of us do of departmentalism are going to reassert themselves. all of the performance management alone. What is going to be different about this? Why is it going to be different? Q533 Kelvin Hopkins: How do you plan to engage Sir Bob Kerslake: I think two or three things again. more Permanent Secretaries in delivering a Let me come back to the first point I made, which is cross-Government agenda of civil service reforms? that actually my performance management is linked Sir Bob Kerslake: Again, we touched on it earlier. to the priorities for the Permanent Secretary, and those First of all, I think they are already engaged because, priorities are things that they will set by agreement for them, delivery of some of their key objectives can with their Secretary of State. At the moment, my only happen if there is an effective cross-civil-service performance goals are signed off by the Secretary of approach. Secondly, I think it will be part of the deal State and they will be in the future. The first thing to of being a Permanent Secretary that you do commit say is that it isn’t whether they are my objectives or time and effort towards this agenda. That will be part the Secretary of State’s. The objectives of the of the performance management conversation that Permanent Secretary will be established with their Jeremy and I would expect to have with them. Secretary of State. That is the first point to make. The second point to make here is, when I come to review Q534 Kelvin Hopkins: One of your priorities is to performance, I will seek the views of the Secretary of effectively performance-manage the Permanent State on this. Secretary cadre. How will you assess your The third point I make is that, as I have said earlier, effectiveness? Given that, although you have a very many of the things that the Department is trying to distinguished record and obviously have very high achieve are things that can only be effectively ability, your experience has not been in central achieved through collaborative corporate working Government but in local government, do you think across the civil service. I do not think it is at all in managing the Permanent Secretaries might be a bit of conflict to have both individuals reporting to Ministers a challenge? and, at the same time, holding them to account for Sir Bob Kerslake: Clearly it is a learning thing for collective corporate actions by the whole of the civil me. Like a lot of the aspects of the job, I am going to service. In fact, just to finish my last point, my have to learn on the job. I think the principles are very experience of local government is that often the same similar to those that would apply in any organisation. points apply. You will have senior officers reporting That is to say you are always, in a performance into a member, in this instance—a Cabinet member of management situation, establishing the agreed a local authority—and at the same time reporting into priorities and tasks for the year ahead, reviewing me managerially. I have managed to make it work performance against them and also reviewing the there and I am very confident that I can make it work performance of the individual in enabling those things here too. to happen in growing their Department. As it is now, it is not a difficult process to identify what the expectations are and then review whether they have Q537 Chair: That is a very interesting comparison to been delivered or not. What is key in doing that, make, because I put it to you that the chief executive though, is that I also get feedback from their Minister of a local authority is a very much more authoritative and from their lead non-executive in going into those figure than historically the Head of the Civil Service appraisal meetings. or even the Cabinet Secretary has been in Whitehall. Sir Bob Kerslake: I don’t think it needs to be that Q535 Kelvin Hopkins: While I am sure they hold way. I think it is perfectly possible to establish you in high regard and you clearly have a authority in the role or in the two roles here. It is part distinguished record, might there just not be some of my job. questioning about you having not come through the civil service ranks, so to speak, as some of there will Q538 Chair: Can I just suggest a kind of have? Might they question your role in some sense? conversation that might take please? Permanent Sir Bob Kerslake: I hope not. I already performance- Secretary to Secretary of State, “The Head of the Civil manage people who have been long-term civil Service has got this plan that means we have to do servants, and I have never experienced them saying, this, this and this in our Department. I don’t agree “You do not understand our position.” That has not with this and your priority is to do this, Secretary of come across to me at all. I hope not and I don’t get State. What should I say to the Head of the Civil any sense that that will happen from my conversations Service?” so far. Sir Bob Kerslake: It is perfectly possible for Permanent Secretaries to indulge in that sort of game, Q536 Chair: I have to say I am still struggling with if you like. It is perfectly possible and conceivable this issue of how you are going to manage these that that might happen but, actually, I don’t think it relationships. I sense that you are going to be very will, for the reasons I have said earlier: there is a nice, helpful, collegiate and co-operative, but when it desire and an appetite to deal with things in a comes to the crunch, a Permanent Secretary in another corporate and collective way, because the performance Department is not going to do what you want them to management will be in place for the individual, and do. They are going to do what their Secretary of State actually the issues we are dealing with are often wants them to do and they are going to do what the shared issues. Yes, that is possible. I cannot say it will Ev 82 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake never happen, but I think it is much less of a problem Sir Bob Kerslake: No, I simply did not the last time than perhaps you are perceiving it to be. because I was not there in an official capacity.
Q539 Chair: What happens at meetings of Q546 Chair: Don’t you think you should sit at the colleagues on Wednesday mornings? You attend and table to show that you have parity with the Cabinet chair pari passu to the Cabinet Secretary. What do you Secretary? expect these meetings to achieve? Sir Bob Kerslake: That is something I am happy to Sir Bob Kerslake: The Wednesday morning meetings explore. are each an hour session. They are in part about information-sharing in both directions, and they are Q547 Chair: I think we are too, because I am pleased very often about a discussion on specific issues of you will be attending Cabinet, because that means you policy or capacity in the civil service. That is how will get that informal moment with the Prime they tend to work now. They are important meetings Minister, perhaps once or twice a week, which you and they are very valued by Permanent Secretaries, would not otherwise get. Isn’t the Prime Minister’s but they should not be seen as the sole governance engagement with you as important? Isn’t that what mechanism for the change agenda. One of the will facilitate your engagement with your colleagues? particular things I want to focus on is how we Sir Bob Kerslake: It is important that I have regular effectively use the civil service board, as a smaller meetings with the Prime Minister. That is part of the group of Permanent Secretaries, to drive forward the plan and those meetings will take place. Attendance reform agenda. at Cabinet helps me to understand the issues around policy implementation and their relevance to my role Q540 Chair: We have just had the response to our as Head of the Civil Service, but it will not be the “Change in Government” Report, which we published only way I will get that information. I will of course in September. The Government says, “We will publish have regular meetings with the Minister for the an outline programme setting out priority areas for Cabinet Office as well. cross-civil-service reform in spring 2012.” You go into the colleagues’ meeting armed with this plan, Q548 Chair: In a local authority, if a service director which is now Government policy, and presumably you went AWOL on his own agenda, even with the will say to the meeting, “Come on; we all have to blessing of a member, as chief executive you would implement this now.” have to square the circle somehow, would you not? Sir Bob Kerslake: If I did it that way, they might be Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes, you would. forgiven for saying, “Hang on a minute.” Of course it is not going to happen like that. That is the plan I was Q549 Chair: How will you square the circle unless referring to earlier when I answered your question. you have that Prime ministerial authority behind you? The whole point here is I will engage Permanent Sir Bob Kerslake: It is important that you do have the Secretaries in the discussion about the plan, what its authority of the Prime Minister in the role, as I said. content is and how we best deliver it. By the time we That comes from the clarity of the role and the publish in spring, I can and would expect there to be regularity of conversations with the Prime Minister on a high level of buy-in by Permanent Secretary issues of concern. colleagues. Q550 Chair: You expect to have it. Q541 Chair: The experience with previous civil Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes. service reform plans is that they are like noisy but passing aeroplanes. So long as you keep your head Q551 Chair: What could you indicate to us that will down and your fingers in your ears, you will be able give us confidence that you are going to have it? to carry on with what you were doing after it has gone Sir Bob Kerslake: It is part of the agreement in taking over the top. up the job. Meetings are already going into the diary Sir Bob Kerslake: Let us hope it is different this time. to meet the Prime Minister.
Q542 Chair: Does it not depend on your authority? Q552 Kelvin Hopkins: A thought occurs to me. It Will you be attending Cabinet on a regular basis as may just be that you have been appointed precisely well? because you are an outsider, in a sense, because you have had a more authoritative role within local Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes. authorities. Maybe to drive change they want someone who is not part of the old club, who will take a Q543 Chair: You do already, I understand. stronger line with Permanent Secretaries. Is that Sir Bob Kerslake: I have been to one; I went to the possible? last Cabinet meeting. Sir Bob Kerslake: It is difficult for me to judge on the balancing arguments, but I do think the Q544 Chair: You have started attending regularly. combination of being in the civil service for a year, as Do you sit at the table? I said earlier—I have a knowledge of the civil service Sir Bob Kerslake: No. and have worked with civil servants for many years in my other jobs—but also having a perspective on Q545 Chair: The Cabinet Secretary sits at the table how things operate in other organisations is a useful but you won’t sit at the table? thing to have. Had I had no experience in the civil Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 83
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake service, it would have been a challenge. Had I only seen in other organisations, but you are drawing in been a civil servant, it might have been harder for me your information from two sources. to see the potential to do things differently. Q555 Priti Patel: How would you address any Q553 Chair: You are going to have this ability so disputes around performance? For example, if a that, when you feel something is not working, you are Permanent Secretary has not met the objectives going to be able to discuss it with the Prime Minister. around the change piece in particular, because they Your colleagues will know that. have been spending a disproportionate amount of time Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes. dealing with the day-to-day and the policy or political side, where they are also accountable to their Q554 Priti Patel: I would like to go back to the Secretary of State. Of course they have a very strong performance management issue. We started this leader in their Secretary of State, who is slightly more session off by talking about an ambitious programme demanding than perhaps others may be. of change and now we are already bogged down in Sir Bob Kerslake: That is the sort of thing you discuss management speak and line management issues. I am in appraisals. What has happened during the year that quite keen to find out a bit more about the actual has impacted on people’s abilities to deliver across the performance management process itself, in the sense range of their objectives? If something happened that that, although the strategy has not quite been defined was unplanned—a major challenge in their yet in terms of the programme of change and the Department that needed sorting—that may well have timeframe for it, are you, along with the Cabinet impacted on their contribution. You have to take that Secretary, looking to bring in a new programme of into account in your appraisal conversations at the performance management? Obviously we will be year end. Again, that is no different from any talking about completely brand new objectives, organisation and how you manage people. presumably, which will go into existing objectives. How do you intend to take people on that journey? Q556 Priti Patel: Finally from me, will you be This does not just involve Permanent Secretaries but reporting to the Prime Minister in terms of your own the Secretary of State as well. Is that just about you performance? investing time with Permanent Secretaries and the Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes, I go to the Prime Minister. Secretaries of State as well to, dare I say it, educate You will know that there is a separate arrangement them on the outcome you are trying to achieve and for assessing performance through the Remuneration how Permanent Secretaries will be judged as part of Committee and Bill Cockburn. their performance management? Sir Bob Kerslake: The first point to say, just dealing Q557 Greg Mulholland: Good afternoon, Sir Bob. I with whether I am solely relying on performance apologise in advance for my voice, but I hope it will management: absolutely not. My view, as I said at the hold up for the few questions I would like to ask of beginning, is that we are more likely to get change to you. I am going to ask some questions about the civil happen if we have an agenda that is understood and service reform, and I would like to ask you one that enthusiastically bought into and supported by has popped up a few times in sessions that we have Permanent Secretaries. That is the first point. In terms had on the Head of the Civil Service. The first is to of the performance management system itself, many say that we, as a Committee, understand why the of the elements of it would be recognisable to various roles that Sir Gus O'Donnell had have been anybody who runs such a system. On an annual basis, split—personalities, fitting people into doing the objectives will be set. Those will be reviewed on a things that they want to do. The outcome of that in mid-year basis and then there will be an annual terms of the Head of the Civil Service role, because appraisal of performance. we have also been clearly told that there are some The key point about the objectives in this context is Permanent Secretaries in some of the large that they will encompass the key goals of the Departments who simply could not fit in the amount Department, i.e. its priorities in policy and of time or energy required to be Head of the Civil implementation terms, the change programme for that Service—that actually means that the pool of people Department, and also the leadership role of that who can become the Head of the Civil Service under Permanent Secretary, both within its Department and this particular model, as we now have it, is fairly small across the civil service. Those will all form part of the and does not actually even include all Permanent objectives. As now, those objectives will be signed off Secretaries. I make clear there are absolutely no by the Secretary of State and will ultimately go to the aspersions on you. We have heard very positive things Prime Minister as well, in fact. There is a complete about your appointment and about your suitability for lining-up of the issues from Minister to me to the the role. Thank you for your very helpful letter as Cabinet Secretary to the Prime Minister in setting the well, dated 15 December. Nevertheless, do you feel objectives. My role for those Permanent Secretaries that it is a slight concern—never mind your that I supervise is to review and assess their appointment, but in the future, in the same model— performance against those objectives. I will do that that not all Permanent Secretaries could actually apply from my own knowledge but also by seeking input to be the Head of the Civil Service, because they are from their Secretary of State and indeed, where too busy with their own Departments? appropriate, potentially from the Prime Minister as Sir Bob Kerslake: I think it is possible for all. I don’t well, and their lead non-executive. In that sense, it is think I would say that any Permanent Secretary would a very similar model from that which you will have be ruled out from doing this role. A huge amount Ev 84 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake would depend on the challenges and issues for that Sir Bob Kerslake: The first thing to say is that we Permanent Secretary and their Department, which will need to develop a very close working relationship may not always be related to size. They may be with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who has the related to the challenge of the change agenda they ministerial lead on the change agenda. However, I have in their own Department. They may relate to don’t think it stops there. What I want to understand their recentness or otherwise in the role. There could is what the issues for the Secretary of State are in the be a range of factors, but I have not personally seen civil service, how they find the strengths and it as being the case that any Department would be weaknesses, and for that to be fed into the change automatically ruled out from consideration for this agenda that we ultimately develop. They will have role. It is going to depend entirely on the insights into what works and what does not that go circumstances at the time, and the wish and ambitions beyond the particular issues of their Department, so I of the individual Permanent Secretaries. would want that contribution to the thinking. The second thing for the Secretary of State is that there Q558 Greg Mulholland: All I will say is that it has may well be specific issues around their Department. been indicated to the Committee that certain current By and large that conversation can and should happen Permanent Secretaries, at least in one Department, with their Permanent Secretary; that is the proper were simply not able to, due to current workload. place for that to happen. However, there may be Whether that is to do with the current workload or occasions where it is appropriate for me to get the size of the Department, we couldn’t be sure, but involved. There will be occasions for me to get certainly that has been indicated to us. involved if there are significant performance issues Sir Bob Kerslake: That is obviously a judgment for that we feel are not being resolved or addressed. that individual Permanent Secretary, based on the circumstances they are in and the tasks they face. Q561 Chair: I am beginning to feel that actually What I am saying to you is that I don’t think there are your leadership model is not intended to be a weak any absolutes about this. It is absolutely dependent leadership model but it is a highly delegated on the circumstances at the time. I don’t think any leadership model. You are delegating leadership of Permanent Secretary would be absolutely ruled in or change to Permanent Secretaries in Departments. out from doing this role in the future. Sir Bob Kerslake: No, what I am saying is certainly not a weak leadership model. The proof of the Q559 Greg Mulholland: Moving on to the issue of pudding will be in the eating on that. What I am civil service reform, when you spoke to the saying is not that I will simply hand it over to them Communities and Local Government Select and say, “You do your best,” but that we are likely to Committee at the end of November you spoke about get much more traction in the agenda if we engage, your role and said that you did not see the role of involve and harness their expertise as well in the Head of the Civil Service as one where you take sole change programme. As part of that you are holding responsibility for the change occurring in the civil those Permanent Secretaries and others who get service. We then had Sir Gus O’Donnell at the end of involved to account for what they achieve. Yes, of last month saying to us that as Head of the Civil course it involves delegation, any leadership model Service you were very much first in command for civil involves delegation because it will not work if you try service reform. Indeed, in your letter you also make clear that you have that leadership role in terms of to do it all yourself. Does that mean you are change; the powerful phrase that you use is for you to essentially delegating it, handing it on and forgetting “be a powerful leader of change”. Could you just about it? Absolutely not. make clear how you see your leadership role? Sir Bob Kerslake: I am absolutely clear in my mind Q562 Priti Patel: It seems pretty clear that the scale that it is my name on the overall change programme, of the challenge faced by the civil service is pretty I am clear about that. What I was trying to say, and immense around the ambitious programme of change. perhaps did not say very clearly at the Communities Obviously you have a great deal of experience in this and Local Government Select Committee, was that I field and in public sector management change outside don’t expect to do it all myself. I expect others to be of Whitehall. Can you be quite frank in your view part of delivering that agenda. Different parts of the and assessment of what managerial or organisational agenda can be led by other Permanent Secretaries. failings exist in the civil service that you feel will Indeed it is both essential that I do so and beneficial need to be addressed as an early priority? in terms of getting different perspectives. However, in Sir Bob Kerslake: The first thing to say is that there terms of whose name is on it overall, that is clearly are enormous strengths in the civil service as well, myself. and we should not lose sight of them. I can see, as somebody who has come in for a year, that the kind Q560 Greg Mulholland: I am sure you would agree, of concentration of talent and ability in the civil even if you might not want to say so, that an service is unprecedented when compared with any interesting challenge will be engaging Ministers in organisation I have ever worked for. It is really reform, because Ministers do have a role here. What important to say that because often civil servants feel role do you see yourself having in engaging Ministers under attack and part of my job is to acknowledge in taking forward the reform process, both in their what is strong and good as well. The way in which own Departments and across the whole civil service, the civil service has adapted to the huge changes in to make it more likely to succeed? the last year or so is truly impressive. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 85
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake
That said, there are two ways in which the civil fragmented and we all did our own different things in service needs to change. The first of those is to carry different business units; that did not work either. We on dealing with those systemic areas of weakness. For are now trying to find a model where change happens example, everyone would accept that the civil service by effective corporate leadership, supported by a needs to get better at programme and project strong corporate resource through the Cabinet Office management. A lot has been done. A lot is in train, and others. such as the Major Projects Academy, but we need to get consistently better at that agenda because therein Q564 Priti Patel: What will that particular corporate lies a huge challenge for the civil service. So there resource from the Cabinet Office be? Will that be are some areas like that where the civil service has training programmes and workshops? To change historically been weak, where it is getting better but it people’s behaviour will require a degree of needs to go further, such as the professionalism work, understanding on the from/to—in terms of what they although even there a lot of progress has been made. have been doing and where they need to be—and The second area of change for the civil service is less how: how they become empowered as individuals to to do with intrinsic strengths and weaknesses of the take that on board. civil service but because the wider world is changing. Sir Bob Kerslake: The short answer is that, yes, some So, for example, we now know that we are going to of it will be about that. For example, the Major have to deliver a lot of Government objectives Projects Academy, as I mentioned earlier, is a through different tools. We cannot assume that there cross-Whitehall initiative. The High Potential is more money or that we will have lots of top-down Development Scheme that we run is a cross-Whitehall targets. That changes the way in which delivery scheme. So there are quite a few things we can and happens and that changes the skills you require to be should do across Whitehall. Developing senior talent, good at implementation of Government policy. That specialist skills, and areas where we need to is one example. The wider public can and do expect collectively get better all lend themselves to a much greater level of transparency in what we do, cross-Whitehall initiatives. I would also expect so that is another area of change. Civil servants have Departments to have their own learning and to get comfortable with being transparent in what they development programmes for their own specific do and open to challenge. needs. A third area of change is that technology has changed the way in which people deliver business and the civil Q565 Priti Patel: Will you be looking to the private service needs to be up with the best about how you sector for any of those, or are they already established harness ways of using IT and so on. So the change within the civil service? programme for the civil service is a combination of Sir Bob Kerslake: I don’t think we have the monopoly things it has always had as a challenge and needs to of wisdom, far from it. The task we have is to get better at and some quite profound new challenges establish what the needs are and how best they can that come from the very big changes that are going on be delivered. Sometimes they can be best delivered around us. through in-house teams and sometimes we need to draw in external expertise. For example, on the Major Q563 Priti Patel: The Government’s response to Projects Academy, external people from the private “Change in Government: the agenda for leadership” sector are coming in to give their experience of basically rejected the proposal for a corporate centre delivering effectively. of Government. What kind of mechanisms do you think can achieve these objectives around change and Q566 Priti Patel: transparency? What is the journey on which you are For the benefit of the Committee: going to be taking members of the civil service to how many people do you expect to take through this equip them for the challenges and changes? change programme and by when? Sir Bob Kerslake: My view about the corporate Sir Bob Kerslake: I cannot give you a single number centre—and this is born of my own experience of on that. running organisations in the past—is that the way to get it right is to see the corporate centre as the Q567 Chair: How about 400,000? corporate leadership of the senior team; that is how Sir Bob Kerslake: In one sense or another, every civil you make it work. Once you get into models that say, servant can and should be part of some form of “There is the centre here and then there is everybody development programme, both individually and else around it,” you are already struggling to get collectively. How many of them will go through things to happen. The model I want to develop is a particularly the ones that are run across Whitehall? I genuine one of corporate leadership. The centre, if cannot give you a number on that at this stage. you like, is the corporate whole and that is supported by strong corporate resources through the civil service Q568 Priti Patel: When do you think you will be reform team and the whole of the Cabinet Office, able to come back to us on that? which provides the kind of support for the change Sir Bob Kerslake: It is the sort of thing we might programme we are trying to deliver. That is the way I want to look at in the plan. It may be one of those have managed to deliver change in the past. We have questions that is very hard to give a simple answer to all been used to models that were highly centralist and but we will certainly look at the issue of how much often became very bureaucratic and very ineffective. of the development programme needs to be one that We are also used to the model where everything was is run across Whitehall. Ev 86 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake
Q569 Chair: If I could just emphasise, that is the in the way they do business. If issues have been kind of detail we are looking for from this escalated through to Ministers when they could implementation plan, which we very strongly feel has actually have been sorted through a collaborative been lacking: who is going to talk to whom in order conversation, that would be something I would want to make things happen? Does that make sense to you? to challenge and test with those involved. I will give Sir Bob Kerslake: It does make sense and I certainly you an illustration of the point. When I came into think we will try and put as much detail as is sensible the role of Permanent Secretary of DCLG I made a to in the plan. What I do not want is for it to become particular point with Martin Donnelly at BIS to say an all-singing, all-dancing blueprint, not least because that although we had areas of common concern we we will not get it done by the spring if we do that. would make absolutely sure we had a strong working relationship. That is rather a long answer to the Q570 Priti Patel: Which of the principal question but it is about encouraging those recommendations in our Report, “Change in the collaborative behaviours that you see and challenging Government: the agenda for leadership” do you think those where you think not enough effort is being made you will actually be implementing? to sort things out. It is as simple as that. Sir Bob Kerslake: We think we have taken up some of them already, such as the issue of having a DG for civil service reform and you have looked at the fact Q573 Kelvin Hopkins: You have talked about not that we need new capacity around commissioning having a lot of people at the centre but will you skills, which I think is really important. Quite a lot of establish the Cabinet Office as an effective heart of what you have said will form part of our thinking as Government for civil service reform? we go forward but those are two of the examples. Sir Bob Kerslake: Absolutely. What I meant by not Chair: We aim to be useful. having too many at the centre is that I don’t think you Sir Bob Kerslake: Thank you. should pull every activity into the centre. That is what I was saying. Efforts to try and do that in other Q571 Kelvin Hopkins: This discussion of a more organisations have not worked. What you do need is corporate approach sounds very much like what has enough capacity and high quality to drive the change happened in local government over recent decades. programme. If you do not have that, no matter how Even from my time as a councillor in the 1970s, I much corporate buy-in you get from Permanent remember that this was the way we were being led. Secretaries, it will not work. You do need to have You say one of your priorities is to “move the civil quite small teams of high calibre people who will help service towards a more corporate, shared model of you deliver what you are seeking to do. management whist retaining the key principle of the Permanent Secretary’s accountability to their Secretary of State and to Parliament”. There might be Q574 Kelvin Hopkins: In many Departments there something of a conflict there. What objectives have is a strong culture of loyalty to the Department first, you set for this priority in your first year, and how do rather than the overall aims of the civil service. Will you plan to achieve it? you have problems addressing those strong Sir Bob Kerslake: It is something that you have to departmental loyalty cultures? work at but it can be done. I say that because I have Sir Bob Kerslake: The truth is that we all have seen it done. What I do not think the corporate multiple loyalties, and that is true in any organisation. leadership approach is is a big centre with lots of In any organisation, people will have a loyalty to their people telling other people what to do. That is not the division, their department and to the whole most effective way of doing it, and that is often what organisation. I think the trick here is to ensure that has led to problems in the past. My objectives would both have a proper place in the way people think about be to have established the plan for change that I talked their roles. In particular, we need to ensure that what about earlier, to have clear processes in place to they do not do, through their loyalty to their deliver that plan for change and to have some clear Department, is shut off the opportunities for dealing milestones set and evidence that we had delivered on with issues collaboratively. We all live with those. I those milestones that would demonstrate that the will continue to live with it in terms of my role as programme had real traction across Whitehall. Those Permanent Secretary of DCLG, but what I want is would be the things I would want to be tested on. people who can see those multiple loyalties and act Also, that there was some evidence that the changes appropriately. were starting to impact on areas of capacity where we knew we had to improve. Q575 Kelvin Hopkins: It is natural that civil servants Q572 Kelvin Hopkins: Existing relationships will still continue to want to put their Department first, between Departments may not be ideal, at this stage but you have to develop a broader sense. anyway, in fitting into this new, more corporate world; Sir Bob Kerslake: The reason you need that broader how will you manage relationships between sense is that actually some of the things the Departments in the future? Department are trying to do cannot be done alone. Sir Bob Kerslake: My sense is that this is about That is the point I was making earlier. It is not often modelling behaviour. If you make it clear what kind a contest between the two and they will get better of approaches you think are right and challenge those results, both for the civil service and for themselves, that are not, it is surprising how much people change if they work collaboratively. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 87
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake
Q576 Chair: Can we just cut to the chase here? Q580 Chair: It may be a triumph of hope over Cross-departmental working in Whitehall is awful experience. isn’t it? Sir Bob Kerslake: I hope it is experience that gives Sir Bob Kerslake: It is patchy on occasions, yes. me the hope.
Q577 Chair: That will do; I will settle for patchy. Q581 Kelvin Hopkins: This leads straight on to what Why is it so patchy? As an outsider you have come Sir Gus told the Committee last month. He said that in and observed these sometimes endemic turf wars, there is “a long way to go” in terms of staff with strict competition. I cannot remember what it is engagement at all levels in the civil service. What you called but some civil servants are actually trained to have just been saying seems to confirm that. What defend their Department’s turf as opposed to measures will you take to improve staff engagement? facilitating cross-departmental working and to stop You obviously have to be more proactive; you cannot another Department grabbing a bit of policy off their just lead from this front and hope it will happen. How own Secretary of State. will you promote that engagement? Sir Bob Kerslake: I guess there is always that story. Sir Bob Kerslake: I agree with Sir Gus’s view on this; Institutions develop forms of behaviour that become we have got more work to do on engagement to match very entrenched, don’t they? You can find many the best of organisations. It is a combination of what examples of collaborative behaviour and what you are happens in individual Departments and how they have trying to do, as always in these situations, is to make clear programmes of raising levels of engagement, that more the norm than it is at the moment. It can and also doing those things that can only be done civil only be done by positively rewarding examples of service-wide. So, for example, civil service-wide, the collaborative behaviour and challenging it when it civil service look for a clear sense of championing does not happen. It is not going to be a quick things that they do well and positively promoting overnight process; it is something you work at steadily those to the wider world. That will help with and signal what you want to see. engagement. People want recognition and they will get it in their own Department, but there should also Q578 Chair: Isn’t the answer that where you rely on be recognition and positive promotion of this rather archaic concept of lead Department on any achievements across the civil service. The steps I cross-departmental issue, as soon as that lead would take are for each Department to have their own Department established, if that is not your Department plan to raise engagement but also across the civil then it is their problem and you let them get on with service, as part of the change programme, to have a it? Lead Department is the killer of the cooperation. programme of things that we are going to do civil Sir Bob Kerslake: I do not think so. Lead Department service-wide as well. does not mean sole Department and if you have a model where sometimes another Department will lead Q582 Kelvin Hopkins: I don’t know if other but I need to get involved because there is a shared Members have found this, but I have found that outcome and vice versa, it is perfectly possible to different Departments perform better or worse than make that kind of approach work. I must not overplay others. There are some Departments that have not the local government contrast but if you go back 30 performed well, in my view, and others that have years ago, that is how local government was as well. performed better, in my experience as a Member of Everything was done departmentally and very little Parliament. I think there is a general view about collaborative working happened. In the best certain Departments that do or do not perform well. authorities that has changed. It can, is changing and When they do start to behave more corporately, do will change in the civil service as well. you think the cross-pollination will help improve the quality of work delivery? Q579 Chair: In local authorities is there not a very Sir Bob Kerslake: I think so. It is interesting that much stronger customer focus whereas Whitehall when we had the discussion this year we looked not Departments are very accountability-focused? The just at areas where engagement scores had gone down accountability can destroy the perspective that a but where they had gone up as well. Those provide Department needs to serve its customers properly. opportunities and case studies for Departments to Sir Bob Kerslake: As you know, I have done quite a learn from each other. I am absolutely with you on lot of work on accountability and I do not think that that point. clear accountability and clear leadership means you cannot have collaborative approaches to dealing with Q583 Kelvin Hopkins: What other challenges have policy issues. What we can say in the civil service you identified from the People Survey results, which is that it will be held to account for implementation. you will take forward in your role as Head of the Because there are very few things that we try and Civil Service? implement that can be done solely on our own, almost Sir Bob Kerslake: There are two or three challenges everything we do—particularly in DCLG, which is a that we need to pick up from them. One is that we cross-cutting Department—needs to draw in others. It saw over time the learning and development scores is going to be in every Department’s mutual interest fall. We have to look in more depth at why that is, to work collaboratively because on some issues they both departmentally and across the civil service. will need others to support them and vice versa. Raising our game on learning and development is Maybe I am a rationalist at heart but I think this will really important. A second one is that generally the become obvious over time. scores on managing change are not good across the Ev 88 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake civil service. That is something we really have to look them as we do now. The job is not one for either trade at because we are in for a period of more change for unionists or for those that are not; it is for all staff and a whole range of reasons; that is the one thing we they should all be part of the communications plan. know. Therefore we have to understand why our staff see us as not being as good as we need to be on that. Q587 Greg Mulholland: I have a last couple of questions on the People Survey. I have to point out Q584 Priti Patel: Can I come in with some questions that the results, when looking at those from your own on engagement? We have the Civil Service People Department, DCLG, came out poorer than the median Survey as a benchmark here but what are your own on some key questions. Notably the engagement level views around morale with people in the civil service was 48%, compared to 56% in the civil service as a on the change programme? I am interested in the point whole. Those who had a clear understanding was only you have just touched on: the fact that the scores are 63%, compared to 84% as a whole. 27% thought that not that good around the change piece generally. What change was managed well, compared to 41% as a do you think you can do to improve that? whole. I will also point out that in the Department Sir Bob Kerslake: There are a number of things going there was a generally higher percentage for questions on in terms of morale. When you talk to staff they on the topics of line management and performance replay back to you issues around what has happened management, which no doubt will please you. Have on pay, pensions and so on, and that is perhaps you got any comments on that, and what steps have inevitable. Also they recognise the context in which you taken in your time as Permanent Secretary to try these changes are being made. You also pick up two to deal with those? very clear messages. One is that they feel that they Sir Bob Kerslake: Like all Departments, we have a want to see a championing of what they do well but challenge in improving our engagement, and it is also challenging when they think there is unfair something we take very seriously. We have just gone criticism of the civil service. That is a very keenly felt through year one of what we see as a two-year change issue. They often feel the media do not do the civil programme and year one involved pretty big changes service justice and they want to see that challenged about the role of the Department, the size of the when it happens. Department and how it was organised. That has A second thing you pick up is the sense of feeling that inevitably had some impact. What we want to focus there is an honest communication of the challenges on in the year ahead is moving from the smaller ahead, so while it may not be good news at least agenda to the stronger agenda, focussing in on the people can see it. There is also an issue about there purpose of the Department, how people can relate being some sense of what the offer is to be a civil their jobs to that purpose of the Department and how servant and why you should become a civil servant, we can improve our learning and development offer. so the positive things should be sold. After all, despite Earlier I touched on the issue of learning from other all the challenges around pay and pensions, there are Departments, which is something we will do. Thirdly, many very strong attractions to being a civil servant, we want to work on getting back to business as usual. such as the interest in the work. We are still a strong One of the consequences of having gone through such employer so there are strong things to say about being a very big reduction over a short period of time is a civil servant but perhaps we have not been clear that a lot of things tend to be put on hold, such as enough in saying them sometimes. opportunities for promotion and opportunities to move people are a bit harder to do. Q585 Priti Patel: On that point about the champion, Having got through that big change we want to tackle are you going to be the champion for the civil service? some of the other issues that staff say impact on their Will you be the one publically out there, extolling the engagement. So yes, we have a challenge ahead, as virtues and saying, “These people do a great job in X have all Departments, and one of the benefits of being or Y Department”? Permanent Secretary of a Department as well as Head Sir Bob Kerslake: Part of my role is to champion and of the Civil Service is that I can see first-hand some to signpost really good examples of practice. As I said of the practical challenges that are faced. earlier, I do not think that means saying everything is good and there is no need for change. However, where Q588 Greg Mulholland: That leads very nicely on things have been done well and done brilliantly in my to my final question. From what you have just own Department I would praise it, so I should be described—the figures and challenges—what do you doing that as Head of the Civil Service as well. think you can draw in your forthcoming role as Head of the Civil Service to take across the civil service as Q586 Priti Patel: I have one other question on a whole? engagement. How do you propose to engage members Sir Bob Kerslake: The things I would draw from it of the civil service who are trade union members and are that we are undergoing a very big change. People were going on strike earlier on in the year? objectively understand why but that does not take into Presumably you have a job of work there to engage account the emotional impact that it has on staff and them on that change programme too. the uncertainty they go through when they are not sure Sir Bob Kerslake: I think the job of engagement is about their job for the future or getting to grips with one that is there for staff who are in a trade union a completely new role; all of these things have an and staff who are not in a trade union; we have a emotional impact. Part of my job is to communicate responsibility to all staff. We have trade union that I understand that and also to consistently recognition agreements and we should work through recognise good achievement and praise those Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 89
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake involved. Inevitably, when you are going through this what the key agenda is for training and development scale of change, people do start to question what they across Whitehall and ensure that we are effective in are doing and how they are doing it. We need to delivering that as well. reassure them about what they are doing well and what they are delivering well for Government through Q595 Chair: So how will you measure how well this period of change and uncertainty. Permanent Secretaries are assessing their skills shortages and skills gaps and how well they are Q589 Chair: But engagement is a key performance addressing them? indicator for someone who is leading an organisation. Sir Bob Kerslake: There are two things really. Sir Bob Kerslake: It is, yes. Whether they have a system for assessing it and whether it is happening is the first thing—whether Q590 Chair: So if engagement does not improve they have effective appraisal and development then you are not doing your job. conversations happening. That is the key bit for me. Sir Bob Kerslake: It is absolutely right to say that Alongside that, what are we picking up from the engagement must improve. What we would say in the People’s Survey in terms of staff perception of last year is that, given the scale of change, holding the learning and development? Those are two key engagement score across the civil service was a good measures. result. We now need to find ways of delivering change and improving engagement at the same time. Q596 Chair: I would like to come back to the plan we hope to see in April 2012. In order to address the Q591 Chair: Even in the civil service, recognising skills piece, does that not need to have a clear view that engagement is something that really matters itself of what the civil service as a whole is for, what its would be a change in the culture of the civil service key and core capabilities should be and how the skills wouldn’t it? levels necessary are going to be achieved within a Sir Bob Kerslake: Its importance is absolutely given timescale? understood at the senior level, not least because Sir Sir Bob Kerslake: It is certainly going to need to say Gus has made it such an important feature. Whether something about the role and purpose of the civil we quite have it understood at all levels—that is service and the capabilities it requires to deliver that perhaps a bigger challenge. role.
Q592 Chair: I would concur with that. Finally, there Q597 Chair: So we can expect some flesh on the are some questions on training. The NAO has been bones around that agenda in this 2012 report? excoriating about the effectiveness of much civil Sir Bob Kerslake: It will certainly address the issue— service training. The July 2011 Report, “Identifying because it has to—about capability and capacity to and meeting central government’s skills deliver the role of the civil service, yes. requirements”, highlighted “a pervasive lack of data on the costs and benefits of skills development”. The NAO Report published in December 2010, “Maturity Q598 Chair: You mentioned a little earlier about of process management in central government”, your desire to see an improvement in project revealed that 13 out of 34 business areas assessed management; it certainly seems to be a skill that is could not demonstrate an understanding of whether lacking in many Departments and is evidently lacking staff had the skills to complete the process they in many different ways. How will you address that in worked on. 30 out of 34 did not “support staff to the implementation of change agenda? develop the skills to continuously improve processes”. Sir Bob Kerslake: To be frank, it is uneven in This is culturally pretty bad, wouldn’t you say? Departments. There are some good examples of Sir Bob Kerslake: I certainly think there is room for project management that probably don’t hit the news improvement and it will clearly be one of the areas because they are well done and the projects are we have to look at as a priority in the plan that we delivered. So we should not assume it is all bad. The talk about. way we move forward on it is through the development of the Centre of Excellence that we have, Q593 Chair: So we are going to get rid of the the Major Projects Academy that I spoke about, and National School of Government. through Departments doing their own assessments of Sir Bob Kerslake: Yes because the way in which what gaps they have in this agenda. The proof of the people receive training has changed and the view pudding will ultimately be in the eating: can we see taken—in my view rightly—was that actually the evidence of projects being better managed through the National School of Government did not fit the kind of gateway review processes? requirements we had for the future. Q599 Kelvin Hopkins: Can I just make one Q594 Chair: So what role will you undertake as comment, following my colleague, Priti Patel? Would Head of the Civil Service with regard to civil service you accept that civil servants, often senior civil training? servants, taking industrial action in no way contradicts Sir Bob Kerslake: Two things, really. One is to hold their absolute commitment to public service and the individual Permanent Secretaries to account for what public interest? I hope that would be recognised at they do in their Departments, through the performance the most senior level. Some of the most conscientious management system. It would also be to establish senior civil servants of all would have taken industrial Ev 90 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
19 December 2011 Sir Bob Kerslake action but that would not have any bearing on how Sir Bob Kerslake: Thank you. committed they are to the public interest. Sir Bob Kerslake: I know from talking to staff that Q601 Chair: I would like to take this opportunity to many went through quite a serious discussion with wish you, and indeed the civil service, the themselves about whether they took industrial action compliments of the season and to wish my colleagues or not. Some went on the side of taking it and others and Committee staff a very happy Christmas. With did not. You will know that the Government’s view that, I will close this session. was that it should really have awaited the completion Sir Bob Kerslake: Thank you very much. This will of the negotiations. However, staff have that right. no doubt be the first of many conversations we have You would clearly want and hope that it would not be in the future. exercised except in circumstances when they felt an Chair: Indeed. absolute need to do so.
Q600 Chair: I certainly think we have covered the waterfront, Sir Bob. Thank you very much for being with us today. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 91
Written evidence
Written evidence submitted by Professor David Richards and Professor Martin Smith1 (HCS 01) 1. The growing role of the Prime Minister and the development of his office have led to questions over the ability of the Cabinet Secretary to fulfil the dual role of adviser to the Prime Minster and as Head of the Civil Service responsible for its day-to-day corporate management. A view both from within Whitehall and beyond has taken root that the balancing of these two roles has become too onerous a task for one individual to execute effectively. Especially in the context of the continual process of reform that now appears to be the norm within Whitehall. 2. It is however interesting to note that as recently as 2009Ð10 both Lord Turnbull and Sir Gus O’Donnell opposed the splitting of the post into separate jobs. Lord Turnbull noted that it: “...has been tried twice and it was a flop both times. If you talk to the people who got the job as Head of the Home Civil Service … I think that they would probably say, ‘I wish I’d never done it’. They got very badly isolated.” (HC 2010: Q165). While Sir Gus O’Donnell, argued that the functions of the post fit together well and that previous attempts to separate them out had not worked well (HC 2010: Q342). This inquiry would therefore be well served to ascertain from the latter in particular what has changed in the ensuing months since he gave evidence on this subject to persuade him of the need for a volte face on this issue. 3. The debate over the appropriate demarcation of the dual roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service is far from new. A brief history of the way in which responsibility for the corporate management of the Civil Service has been organised over the course of the last forty or so years reveals that it has been in something of a state of flux: — Early 20th century—core responsibility for the management of the Civil Service lay with the Treasury. — Following Fulton (1968), responsibility was transferred to a new body—the Civil Service Department (CSD 1968Ð1981). — With the abolition of the CSD, Civil Service pay and personnel transferred back to the Treasury, while the day-to-day running of Whitehall was off-loaded to a new unit—the Management and Personnel Office [MPO] located in the Cabinet Office. — 1983—the joint responsibility for Head of the Civil Service between the Treasury Permanent Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary was abandoned. — In 1987, the MPO was also abolished, with most of its functions passing back to the Treasury, but following the creation of Next Steps Agencies (1988), the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (OMCS) was created to oversee efficiency issues. — The OMCS morphed into the Office of Public Service and Science (OPSS and later OPS 1992Ð98) in the Cabinet Office with efficiency and personnel responsibilities. — 1995—the transfer of the Management and Pay Divisions from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office establishing the current model for the demarcation of responsibilities (Richards 2008). 4. Moreover, those with long Whitehall memories will recall that on occasions when the roles of Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service were split, it proved at times to be a less than happy affair. For the most part, conflict between the two post-holders mirrored a competitive tension for ascendency in the Whitehall village between the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. This is less likely to be repeated this time around, although some concern will be raised if the new Head of the Civil Service is also the Treasury Permanent Secretary. Nevertheless, there will be those within the Civil Service who will no doubt feel some element of apprehension that the future role of Head of the Civil Service, notwithstanding which Department he or she comes from, will carry less clout, in particular in terms of having the ear of the Prime Minister. The new arrangements would therefore benefit from ensuring that there are a set of both formal and informal mechanisms available to the future Head of the Civil Service to allow for appropriate access to the Prime Minister, similar to that enjoyed by the current Cabinet Secretary. 5. The key argument for splitting the post resides on the view that currently, the greater demands on the job, in particular in terms of acting as the Prime Minister’s principal adviser has compromised the ability of recent office holders to devote the required attention to corporate management and leadership issues within Civil Service. Yet there is something of a contradiction here. On the one hand, the view is being presented that recent changes have led to a sizeable increase in the portfolio of duties and responsibilities now required of the Head of the Civil Service. Yet on the other hand, it is deemed to be only a part-time job equating to the equivalent of two days a week. This sends out something of a mixed message. Moreover, what are the implications for the new post-holder in terms of being able to continue to properly fulfil their current function of permanent secretary within their existing department? 6. This also raises a further issue. If, as unconfirmed reports suggest, it is the case that the key driver behind this reform is a desire by the next Cabinet Secretary to off-load the responsibilities of Head of the Civil Service, allowing him to concentrate on his main interest, that of the policy function, this once again smacks of one of 1 Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, UK. Ev 92 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
the besetting sins of British administrative reform—that of ad hocery and short-termism to suit the personal whims of individuals [be they ministerial or bureaucratic] of the day—rather than properly thought-out, longer term organisational reform based on a set of coherent structural and managerial plans. 7. Despite these concerns, it is our view that the decision to now split these two roles should be cautiously welcomed. Such a move offers the clear potential to enhance the ability of the officeholders to undertake these newly demarcated roles of i] Cabinet Secretary with responsibility to act as the senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister and Secretary to the Cabinet and ii] Head of the Civil Service with responsibility for corporate leadership and management in Whitehall. It will however require the new post-holders to establish an effective relationship with one another, but based on clear specifications of roles and functions, lines of accountability, and processes of policy implementation. In particular, both post-holders will need to recognise that the success of the new arrangements is contingent on their establishing a mutually inter-dependent working relationship with each other. If though, their relationship instead descends into a power struggle based on staking out individual Whitehall fiefdoms, the consequences will be fraught. 8. There are of course risks to these reforms. First, under the current [and new] arrangements the Cabinet Secretary works to the Prime Minister. But, in future, it is not clear who the Head of the Civil Service should work to. If it is purely a corporate-management function then it is an issue that is directly of concern to the Minister for the Civil Service. But if there are policy aspects (relating to the functions of government, the organisation of the civil service, constitutional aspects of governmental relations etc), this can potentially cut- across the Cabinet Secretary’s remit. In such cases, is the Head of the Civil Service reporting to the Prime Minister as well as the Minister for the Civil Service or indirectly to the Prime Minister through the Cabinet Secretary? The point here is that the boundaries between the management and policy functions are not mutually exclusive, leading to a blurring in the lines of responsibility. 9. This then raises the vexed issue of accountability. At a general level, it is worth making the point that an element of constitutional ambiguity still exists concerning civil service accountability. On one level, the position is clearly set-out in the most recent Civil Service Code (11 November 2010) that “civil servants are accountable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to Parliament”. From this perspective, civil servants are directly accountable for their actions to their relevant minister. Yet, this somewhat rubs-up against the view presented elsewhere in three documents that are not without some constitutional significance—the 1918 Report of the Machinery of Government: Ministry of Reconstruction [commonly referred to as the Haldane Report], the Carltona Doctrine (1943) and the Armstrong Memorandum (1985). In terms of the former, Lord Haldane’s report affirmed a principle already established by Northcote-Trevelyan that the relationship between ministers, including the Prime Minister, and officials should be intrinsically linked: “The Government of the country [cannot] be carried out without the aid of an efficient body of permanent officers, occupying a position duly subordinate to that of the ministers who are directly responsible to the Crown and to Parliament, yet possessing sufficient independence, character, ability and experience to be able to advise, assist, and to some extent, influence those who are from time to time set over them.” (Cmnd 3638:1968, pp.108Ð119). On this basis, it has been argued that the British system of government embodies a system not of formally codified rules but instead of advice—determined by the constitutional convention that [prime] ministers act as advisers to the sovereign, having in turn been advised by civil servants. The issue here then, is that constitutionally, the Haldane model, underpinned by Northcote-Trevelyan, does not recognise any separation in the personality of ministers from their officials. This position was subsequently formally conferred in statute by the 1943 Carltona Doctrine2 establishing the principle that civil servants are the alter ego of their minister and have no constitutional personality beyond that of their minister. This view was in part further reiterated by Lord Armstrong’s 1985 Memorandum. In constitutional theory then, the issue of civil service accountablity is revealed as being somewhat janus-faced—officials are directly accountable for their actions to their minister and yet at the same time they are given no personality beyond that of their minister. 10. We now move from theory to practice to focus more particularly on the lines of accountability for both the Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service. As noted above, under the new arrangements, formally the Cabinet Secretary will be accountable to the Prime Minister and less satisfactorily, the Head of the Civil Service to both his or her Permanent Secretary and to the Minister for the Civil Service. Yet de facto, the convention of their accountability has been predicated on a somewhat ephemeral constitutional nicety, enunciated by one former Head of the Civil Service, William Armstrong that he was accountable unto himself which was as a great taskmaster: “I am accountable to my own ideal of a civil servant” (Chapman 1998: 306). It can be argued that this view has conditioned the modus operandi for each of Armstrong’s successors. Given the potential complexity of the new arrangements, one can see this situation persisting. Its justification, legitimised under the auspices of a public service ethos and arguments concerning the integrity and impartiality of civil servants, is however increasingly hard to sustain in the current climate. 11. There is one final twist to this complex tale of accountability. As noted above, the future Head of the Civil Service is potentially accountable to both the relevant Departmental Minister when wearing the hat of 2 The Carltona principle was established in a 1943 ruling made by the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Greene, in the case of Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] in which he stated that: “In the administration of government in this country, the functions which are given to ministers (and constitutionally properly given to ministers because they are constitutionally responsible) are functions so multifarious that no minister could ever personally attend to them ... [therefore] The duties imposed upon ministers and the powers given to ministers are normally exercised under the authority of ministers by responsible officials of the department. Public business could not be carried on if that were not the case” (see Freedland 1995). Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 93
Permanent Secretary and to the Minister for the Civil Service when wearing the Head of the Civil Service hat. Here then, it is not impossible to envisage some potential for a conflict of interest to emerge.
12. Elsewhere, in organisational terms, the decision to allow for the next Head of the Civil Service to potentially come from and be based in one of the “non-coordinating” departments in Whitehall appears to those on the outside, rather odd. One suspects this is driven by a desire not to go down the path of creating an explicit Department for the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as is the case for example in Australia. In our view, despite concerns raised elsewhere over such an arrangement (see for example HC 2010), such an approach could fit within our existing constitutional settlement. Indeed, given the proposed changes, we would advocate a model that would see the formal creation of a Department for the Prime Minister and Cabinet in which the Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister [ie the current Cabinet Secretary] would reside with responsiblity for policy advice. The Head of the Civil Service could then reside within the Cabinet Office and more effectively carry out the core responsibilities for “management/co-ordination” across Whitehall and “corporate leadership” of the Civil Service. In so doing, this would not only bolster the power-base of the Head of the Civil Service, but in organisational terms, be predicated on a much clearer organisational rationale, allowing the office holder to operate from within the key co-ordinating department in Whitehall.
13. The critical question though remains—will the proposed changes enhance the ability of the two new post-holders to more effectively execute their designated roles and in particular enhance their ability to “speak truth unto power”? Here, one cannot ignore the degree of concern raised over the declining status of the post of Cabinet Secretary/Head of the Civil Service in recent times. Views on why are divided—split between organisational reform and the personality of the office holder. For example, to briefly quote from evidence given by various witnesses to the recent Lords Constitution Committee’s inquiry into The Cabinet Office and the Centre of Government, Professor Dennis Kavanagh observed: I am awfully struck by the decline in the standing of the Cabinet Secretary in relationship to the Prime Minister. I think that Lord Armstrong was the last person who could speak very authoritatively to a Prime Minister, and when you think of Bridges, Burke Trend, and these kind of people, Prime Ministers—I will not say that they looked up to them—but they really could appreciate that there is the majesty of the state there, as it were. That has ceased to be the case.” (HC 2010: Q47) Dr. Richard Heffernan observed: It is interesting that the Cabinet Secretary’s role has increased but his or her personal authority has probably diminished in the past 10 years. We have had four Cabinet Secretaries in 12 years and the Cabinet Secretary is now no longer the chief adviser, in the way that Sir John Hunt was to people like Callaghan and Heath. (HC 2010: Q45) While Lord Donoughue suggested that the institutional reforms at the centre of Whitehall have changed the nature of the machine and so affected the role of the Cabinet Secretary: “It was not a decline in the calibre of individuals [as Cabinet Secretary]...it was that the bureaucratic machine around them was somehow dismantled and it became much more difficult for them to impose the efficient will that had been the characteristic of Sir John Hunt and, I am sure, his predecessors”. (HC 2010: QQ103Ð4).
14. The nub of this issue goes beyond how the formal role of the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service are constituted [in whatever guise]. Instead, it is about the changing style and approach to government and the extent to which Whitehall’s traditional monopoly on advice has been challenged in recent times. Here, we wish to clearly state our support for this development which has led to a greater plurality of advice available to government. Nevertheless, one of the unfortunate sour laws of “unintended consequences” derived from this change is an increasing reliance by the Prime Minister on a small coterie of advisers in Number Ten. The net effect in policy terms has been to diminish the “clout” of the Cabinet Secretary. It can however be argued that a future Cabinet Secretary freed of the responsibilities for Whitehall’s corporate management, could present a countervailing effect to this tendency, by being able to divest more time, attention and resources to the policy function.
15. A final dimension to this argument is that the bifurcation of these two roles could potentially lead to a more robust application of the Ministerial Code and in so doing, enhance the overall standards in public life at both the individual ministerial and in turn, collective government level. Under the new arrangements, the Head of the Civil Service is likely to have a more formal, less personalised relationship with the Prime Minister. If called upon by the Prime Minister to “advise” on a particular case, as has recently happened with the Rt. Hon Liam Fox, the Head of the Civil Service will not potentially be confronted by any sense of a conflict of loyalty to the Prime Minister or more broadly, the government of the day that the current arrangements had the potential to engender.
References:
Chapman, R A (1988) Ethics in the British Civil Service. London: Routledge.
Freedland, M (1995) Privatising Carltona: Part II of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994’ Public Law, 21Ð6.
HC (2010) House Of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution’s Report: The Cabinet Office and the Centre of Government, 4th Report of Session 2009Ð10, HL Paper 30, London, The Stationary Office. Ev 94 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
Richards, D (2008) New Labour and the Civil Service: Reconstituting The Westminster Model (Basingstoke: Palgrave December 2008. October 2011
Written evidence submitted by David Laughrin (HCS 02) Submission by David Laughrin, Fellow of the Ashridge Business School Public Leadership Centre and one- time Private Secretary to the last Head of the Home Civil Service whose role was separate from that of the Cabinet Secretary
Summary Past experience suggests that: — Separating the roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service (HCS) is perfectly workable and now probably has more advantages than disadvantages. — The HCS should have key strategic responsibilities for promoting an effective contribution from the Civil Service to good governance within the UK; for ensuring that proper mechanisms exist for the delivery of the programmes of the Government of the Day, while safeguarding the long term values, motivation and morale of the whole Civil Service within UK constitutional conventions; and for regularly reviewing the appropriateness of these conventions. — As first among equals, the HCS should have a strategic responsibility, in conjunction with his or her colleagues as Permanent Secretaries, for promoting efficiency, effectiveness, propriety, responsiveness, good organisation, good delivery, good leadership and good management across the Civil Service in both the short and longer term and for international benchmarking of UK Civil Service performance. — The HCS should also have a public role, acting without fear or favour but under the authority of Ministers, to suggest and promote required reform and also to defend the Civil Service against unfair and ill-founded public criticism or attacks, and to promote both continuity and beneficial change in civil service practice. — The HCS should have particular responsibilities for supervising the career management, learning and development regime and succession planning arrangements for the Senior Civil Service, and especially the top 200 posts within it, so that the right blend of skills, experience and expertise is made available for both the Government of the Day and for successor Governments. — The HCS should ultimately be responsible for making recommendations to the Prime Minister, and where appropriate to the Monarch, on both appointments to the top two levels in the Civil Service hierarchy and on performance assessment and rewards for individual Permanent Secretary colleagues. — The HCS should also be available as a counsellor for Permanent Secretary colleagues on constitutional, ethical, human resource management and good governance matters. — The HCS should derive authority from the weight of his or her experience and office, and have the access to be able to make recommendations directly to the Prime Minister when appropriate. — The HCS will need departmental support from the Cabinet Office and sufficient time to devote to the role. The right collegiate relationship with senior colleagues in other departments, especially the Cabinet Office, Downing Street, and the Treasury will be critical.
Introduction 1. From 1978 to 1980, I was one of the last Private Secretaries to work for a Head of the Home Civil Service (HCS) who was not also the Cabinet Secretary. The HCS then was the late Sir Ian Bancroft (subsequently Lord Bancroft). The Public Administration Committee may therefore like to have a brief perspective from me about some of the questions raised in its inquiry on the role of the Head of the Civil Service. I was Sir Ian’s Private Secretary from 1978 to 1980 and retired from my last job in the Senior Civil Service in 2007. 2. I personally welcome the return to something more like the configuration that existed before the merger of the two posts. My impression is that the weighting and pressures on the Cabinet Secretary must now make it increasingly difficult for holders of that office to give the Head of the Civil Service (HCS) role the attention that it deserves and will certainly require in the immediate future. But each potential arrangement has advantages and disadvantages. The lessons of the past may be relevant to dealing with these in the most effective way.
Strategic Governance 3 The role carried out by the HCS in the late 1970s—under the authority and mostly (and importantly) with the confidence of the Prime Minister of the day—was to deliver continuous improvement of the civil service machine so that it remained fit to provide the support, advice and delivery that Ministers required, and was fit to Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 95
meet future challenges in terms of capability, capacity, and ethics. This meant seeking to ensure that leadership, organisation, management, development and motivation of the civil service matched good practice elsewhere. 4. Ian Bancroft was concerned with the structure of Government, the driving through of efficiency measures—some developed latterly with the help of external efficiency advisers like Derek Rayner—and human resource management reform policies. He also had a particular interest, like his counterparts in the private sector with whom he sought regular contact, in the succession planning, career development and appointments processes for the most senior posts. 5. Through regular formal and informal interaction with senior colleagues he sought to influence the strategic direction in all these areas while leaving the detailed execution to others. He saw his role as providing a source of advice and counselling for his senior colleagues as and when required. He also carried out a function as a trouble-shooter, if difficulties between colleagues or in relationships with Ministers were evident. 6. Ian Bancroft was also particularly concerned about the provision of appropriate learning and development opportunities. He believed that the civil service was too insular, and was too inclined to undervalue academic studies and experience of other governments and other sectors. He believed in paying less attention to Whitehall and more to areas where the civil service interacted with the public. He also stressed the need to learn from history and from past triumphs and disasters at home and abroad. He promoted more attention to such learning and was a strong supporter of the then Civil Service College. 7. Drawing on his second world war experience, he also had a clear vision of the need for clear goals, good two-way communication, and effective leadership. He often stressed his responsibility to develop the right leadership experiences in others. He was firm about his duty to warn if he felt the direction being taken was wrong, but was very aware of his obligation not to usurp the proper leadership role, decision-making responsibility and democratic authority of Ministers. 8. All these functions and perceptions appear to me to remain relevant to the role that a HCS might play in the future, as indicated in the summary at the beginning of this paper. 9. But the context is important. Ian Bancroft led a department—the Civil Service Department—to which he could look for policy development, advice and professional support and which provided traction to make things happen. He had support from a Second Permanent Secretary to allow him time to devote to the role. He had a close relationship and regular formal and informal meetings with senior colleagues in the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and 10 Downing Street. He had, at least until differences of view allegedly arose between him and Prime Minister Thatcher, the confidence of the Prime Minister of the day and sufficient access when he needed it. He had experience of work at the centre of government, of human resource management work and of running a large department. 10. Such relationships, the line of authority, the support, the access, the experience, the skills and the time were important and will be likely to be so for an HCS in future. There will need to be clarity about the relationships and formal and informal machinery for setting a unified strategy and approach, especially with the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.
Public Role in Promoting Professionalism, Continuity and Change 11. After working for Ian Bancroft, and with his encouragement, I managed two social security offices. I saw there the demoralised reaction of the front line staff to the often ill-informed and hostile media criticism of the civil service. I heard their dismay that no one seemed to be listening to their concerns, defending their professionalism and standing up for them, except behind closed doors. This highlighted for me the need—as has helpfully subsequently evolved—for an increasingly visible HCS presence. I believe it has been valuable that lately the HCS has been seen as more accessible through visits across the civil service, and also more visible through a more high-profile public identity and such campaigns as the promotion of reform through passion, pace, pride and professionalism. 12. However, the far-seeing title of one of the quite frequent civil service reform White Papers of recent years was “Continuity and Change”. An inevitable responsibility for the next HCS will be to be able to help shape the next phase of the continuing reform agenda, and argue the case for both transformational and incremental change while preserving what should be left unchanged. 13. In this context, it is never easy to strike the right balance between high-profile and private comments. Nor is it simple to promote needed reform, to provide frank feedback on possible flaws or unintended consequences, and to defend publicly the civil service, and in particular its ranks of low paid and hard pressed front-line staff, from unjustified criticism. Despite the historical precedent, my judgement is that it is likely to be easier for someone who is not also Cabinet Secretary to strike this balance frankly, openly and independently without losing the critical trust of Ministers.
Career Management and Appointments 14. Such trust is also critical if the HCS is to continue to play an effective role in career management and appointments for the most senior staff. These appointments need to strike the right blend between preserving the value of an impartial career service, managed and advanced according the principles of fair and open Ev 96 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
appointments not patronage, responding appropriately to Ministers’ personal preferences, bringing in new blood and expertise where needed, and preserving for Ministers the right depth and breadth of experience and departmental knowledge amongst their top advisers. Past experience highlights the need to promote wider experience and interchange across departments and beyond, while not neglecting the need to develop in-depth expertise and wisdom. Experience also points to dangers of instant judgements and reactions to temporary problems and the importance of having an eye to the longer term. 15. Ian Bancroft took all this very seriously and spent much time talking to senior staff and Ministers about the right moves and development opportunities. He engaged his Permanent Secretary and HR Director colleagues in detailed succession planning activity, and took a personal interest in its execution. For a while in the 1990s such impetus may have been diminished as the appointments system became more market driven and a much greater proportion of jobs was advertised. This appeared to be seen to devalue succession planning. More recently the emphasis on planning and career management has, I understand, rightly been revived. 16. As the senior executives of any blue chip companies readily testify, time spent on such activity and on getting top appointments and succession right are key aspects of successful senior leadership. The right people need to be appointed to or encouraged to apply for the right jobs in the right teams. Long term successors need to be encouraged to get appropriate experience within and beyond the civil service at an early stage of their careers. In the recent report that I completed for Ashridge Business School and the Whitehall and Industry Group—Searching for the X-Factors: Decision Making in Government and Business (October 2011)—I also noted the advantages of greater continuity in appointments and greater attention when making appointments to getting the right balance of expertise and experience in top departmental teams. All that will require the traditional vision, subtlety and finesse expected from any HCS.
Learning and Development 17. The HCS will face a similar challenge from the recent announcement about the closing down of the National School of Government (the former Civil Service College) and its replacement by the new Civil Service Learning arm of the Cabinet Office. The announcement envisages more emphasis across the civil service being placed on e-learning and on the commissioning of other training from a range of suppliers for all departments. Though it is fortunate that there are some good resources around, including the cross-departmental foundation e-learning Understanding the Civil Service and the invaluable and thought-provoking websites like www.civilservant.org.uk, there will be key questions to be addressed about those aspects of learning and development which work best through face to face interaction between people. 18. A blend of different activities is likely to be needed for all, and not least for those in the top 200 posts about whose development the HCS has traditionally been intimately concerned. Face to face interaction between officials and sometimes with Ministers is not a luxury. Top management direction and example has often also been needed to encourage appropriate take up. 19. One of the more successful initiatives encouraged in the early 1980s, for example, was the introduction of the Top Management Programme involving joint learning between senior executives from Government, the private sector and the voluntary sector. This kind of initiative, initially regarded with suspicion but latterly identified as of particular value by a huge majority of participants, depended on top level sponsorship and support. It and similar enterprises are very likely to require such support even more in the new learning and development environment that lies ahead. 20. While the danger of a lacuna is being addressed within the Cabinet Office, the right way forward will need considerable top level input, paying regard to a quote often attributed to the late management guru Peter Drucker: “If you think training is expensive, try ignorance.”
Making Things Happen 21. Experience suggests that the activities and priorities outlined above will provide a sufficient challenge for any new Head of the Civil Service, especially if as expected the role will be combined with another Permanent Secretary job. Success will not come from powers given to the post-holder, but from selection of the right person with the right blend of experience, wisdom, expertise, personal qualities, focus and time to influence and counsel his or her colleagues, to provide the right degree of challenge and support for Ministers, and to support and shape the wider civil service through the years of potential hard times for the UK that lie ahead. 22. In that context, I recall that Ian Bancroft was opposed to adopting the latest fad—those initiatives he described as “the schizophrenic lure of the merely modish”—but strongly endorsed a finding in the report he commissioned called Civil Service and Change (1975) which presciently said: “It will take a great effort from the management of the Service at all levels to adapt fast enough to meet the challenge of fast-moving and more demanding times. The going will be uphill and the gradient is getting steeper all the time”. November 2011 Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 97
Written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Peter Riddell (HCS 03) 1. There is no uniquely correct form of leadership for the Cabinet Office and the Civil Service. Several different combinations have been tried since the Fulton Report in 1968. Much has depended on the personalities and fashions of the moment. The central question has been who has access to the Prime Minister and can carry most authority with fellow Permanent Secretaries, as well as in Whitehall generally and outside. The new proposals for splitting the leadership raise questions about lines of responsibility and authority which have so far not been satisfactorily explained. 2. In one sense the appointment of Jeremy Heywood as Cabinet Secretary, together with the abolition of his current post of Permanent Secretary for 10 Downing Street is both a continuation of his current role and a reversion to a much earlier pattern. Traditionally, Cabinet Secretaries have been the principal policy adviser to the Prime Minister, both on immediate government business and on major constitutional and organisational questions. This will clearly be Mr Heywood’s role. However, over the past 15 years, this aspect of the Cabinet Secretary’s role has increasingly been taken by senior officials and special advisers within 10 Downing Street itself. 3. The novel feature is the decision is not just to separate the Head of the Civil Service from the post of Cabinet Secretary but to combine the role with that of a Permanent Secretary in an unspecified Whitehall department. 4. Until 30 years ago, the Cabinet Secretary was able to concentrate on advising the Prime Minister and co- ordinating the work of the Cabinet Office secretariats, as Mr Heywood will. That was largely because, before 1968, the Treasury held departmental responsibility for the Civil Service. After the Fulton Report, a new Civil Service Department was established under the Head of the Civil Service, generally a senior Permanent Secretary. Baroness Thatcher abolished the separate department in 1981 since she did not believe it played a useful role and thought it had lost its edge and drive. For 18 months, the responsibilities were shared between the Cabinet Secretary and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. But the roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service were combined from 1983 onwards. However, pay remained with the Treasury until 1995. 5. A number of past Cabinet Secretaries have said publicly, recently, to the current PASC inquiry, and in their evidence to the 2009Ð10 report into ‘The Cabinet Office and the Centre of Government’ by the Constitution Committee of the Lords, that the job of Head of the Home Civil Service took up a quarter of their time, and not as much as two days as implied at present. All previous Cabinet Secretaries have favoured combining the roles, as did the Lords Constitution Committee. The general view was that, on his own, the Head of the Civil Service had, in Lord Turnbull’s words, got ‘very badly isolated’. 6. However, the combined roles have created a heavy burden and Cabinet Secretaries since 1983 have delegated some functions: the preparation of briefs for the Prime Minister for the business of Cabinet; handling public service reforms; and responsibility for security and intelligence. It has become a practice to have at least one other civil servant of Permanent Secretary rank in the Cabinet Office to handle one of these responsibilities. But there is a big distinction between delegating responsibilities and splitting the position.
Committee Questions 7. The Role of the Head of the Civil Service:
Role and responsibilities Professional and corporate leadership. Career development, training and senior appointments. Oversight of reform and reorganisation. Maintenance of high ethical standards and monitoring of statutory duties under the 2010 act.
Powers, functions and accountability There is an ambiguity here. The Head, whether or not Cabinet Secretary, has only been able to guide, not command his fellow Permanent Secretaries. He is not a chief executive; revealingly, the Wednesday morning meeting is described as of ‘colleagues’. Incidentally, who will now chair these weekly meetings? When the posts have been combined, accountability has been to the Prime Minister as minister responsible to the civil service, though day-to-day responsibility has been delegated to a minister in the Cabinet Office, notably now with Francis Maude, as Minister for the Cabinet Office. There are uncertainties about how this will work in future. The announcement of the changes said that both the Cabinet Secretary and the Head will report directly to the Prime Minister. However, Mr Heywood will have most access to the Prime Minister and may well be seen to be senior in practice- and certainly with more influence- than the new Head who will be a departmental Permanent Secretary.
Resources It is unclear whether the new Head will have two offices—one in his or her department, and another in the Cabinet Office. The real question is about lines of accountability within the Cabinet Office. Presumably, the Ev 98 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
various secretariats (economic and domestic policy, national security and global and European issues) will report to Mr Heywood. Ian Watmore is becoming Permanent Secretary, Cabinet Office and will report to Mr Maude and support the new Head in Civil Service management roles. That leaves unclear what parts of the Cabinet Office will report directly to the Head.
Powers of new Head, remit to drive change, scope for driving change outside own department Again, considerable ambiguity both because of distance from 10 Downing Street and because of role of Mr Watmore as driver of efficiency and reform programme.
Form of appointment and role of Parliament The new Head, along with the new Cabinet Secretary, should make an early appearance before PASC, as has happened in the past. But having a pre-appointment hearing raises broader constitutional issues since it would extend the agreed principles of such hearings for senior public appointments to Permanent Secretaries before they take up their posts. Should that apply to all Permanent Secretaries? This broader issue should be considered by the Liaison Committee.
The Proposed Changes 8. The potential advantage is to allow the Cabinet Secretary to concentrate on his traditional role of being the main policy adviser to the Prime Minister and co-ordinator of the work of Cabinet Office secretariats. The risk is that the Cabinet Secretary will be seen as very much the main adviser to the Prime Minister, as well as, in practice, chief fixer of policy disputes and enforces of decisions, rather than representing the whole Civil Service. The main question, and potential disadvantage, of the split is whether the separate Head will have sufficient authority in Whitehall, notably given that he or she will have much less access to the Prime Minister than the Cabinet Secretary. There are bound to be conflicts of time for the new Head with his or her role as Permanent Secretary of a department. It is unclear how the new Head will divide his or her time, and what impact there will be on their own department. Will a new Director-General have to be appointed to take on some of the Permanent Secretary’s responsibilities within the department? There are also questions over lines of accountability within the Cabinet Office, as noted above. For example, who oversees ethics and propriety. Allegations about ministers have usually landed on the Cabinet Secretary’s desk. Will the Cabinet Secretary remain the adviser on the Ministerial Code? But what about when issues of Civil Service independence—now formally defined in statute—are raised? These naturally fit with the new Head, rather than the Cabinet Secretary. What will happen if there is an ethical problem within the department where the new Head is Permanent Secretary? Again, there is a need for clarity here. Presumably the Cabinet Secretary will remain the guardian of the Cabinet Manual but, there are issues that naturally involve the Head of the Civil Service. There is obvious scope for confusion over the Civil Service reform programme. That is directly Mr Watmore’s responsibility, as it is now, but the new Head will be responsible for both leading the Civil Service and driving through the reform programme. On appointments of Permanent Secretaries, presumably responsibility will be divided between the Cabinet Secretary and the new Head in dealing the Civil Service Commissioner, who organises the selection process. November 2011
Written evidence submitted by Professor Colin Talbot (HCS 04) Those That Can Do Policy, Those That Can’t … Separating the Roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service The decision to split the roles of Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service could be seen as marking the final triumph of policy making over actually delivering services and regulation effectively. It cements a series of changes over more than two decades that have exacerbated the split between “policy work” and “implementation”, to the detriment of both but especially the latter. I will leave aside the procedural issue of whether the Government should have consulted more fully with Parliament before embarking on such a major change. This Committee has consistently argued that organizational and personnel changes within the machinery of government should be subject to greater Parliamentary scrutiny before the event but, as usual, Government seems to have completely ignored these wishes. This brief note sets out for the Committee some of the history of the divide between “policy” and “implementation” by focusing on three previous seminal moments: the codification of the pre-eminence of “policy work” in Lord Bridges “Portrait of a Profession” (1950); the organizational divide between policy and Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 99
implementation attempted under “Next Steps” (1988); and finally the institutionalizing of a policy-operations split in individual careers through “Professional Skills for Government” (2003).
The Historic Divide—“The Profession” (1950)
Lord Bridges celebrated lecture on the civil service, published as “Portrait of a Profession”, formed a core part of civil service ideology. As Peter Hennessy has pointed out, it was the text handed to every “fast streamer” as a guide as to what the role of senior civil servants was all about.
Reading that text 60 years later it is quite clear it is almost exclusively about the policy-advisory role of the top civil servant. Indeed Bridges starts by saying explicitly he is not going to talk about the “far larger numbers engaged in the executive work of Government up and down the country”.
Later in the lecture Bridges quotes Henry Taylor, from “The Statesman”, 1836, apparently approvingly: “The hand which executes a measure should belong to the head which propounds it”. But Bridges goes on to qualify this, saying that in large organizations “the hundreds of hands that which execute such measures cannot in any literal sense belong to the head which propounds them”. It is worth quoting in full what he says next: “It is with the middle ranks of these large organizations that responsibility lies for ensuring that that which the head propounds is thoroughly understood by the hands, and that the hands which execute can communicate back to the head. It is for them to see that the decisions of policy laid down by Ministers and senior officials are thoroughly understood throughout the organization. It is for them to appraise everyday happenings and to see that those which are significant from the point of view of policy are brought to the attention of their seniors. Indeed, at the middle levels of the organization at which this work is done it can be fairly said that policy and administration merge and are only distinguished with difficulty”. (Emphasis added)
This separation of pure policy work by “senior officials” (who are put on the same level as Ministers) from the more mundane task of translating policy into actions and dealing with its consequences at the “middle levels” that has run through the civil service before and since.
The Apartheid Solution: Separate But “Equal” Under “Next Steps” (1988)
In 1986 Mrs Thatcher put into motion a review of why so many attempts at reforming the civil service, including the Rayner Scrutinies and the Financial Management Initiative, had apparently delivered so little real change. The conclusions of this review were finally published in 1988 as the “Next Steps” report.
“Next Steps” concluded that attempts at system and cultural change would not succeed unless radical structural changes were introduced. They proposed what was in essence the separation of Bridges “senior officials” the “head”, from the “mid-level” task of managing the “hands”.
The diagnosis was that because policy-work at the top inevitably meant senior civil servants were focused “upwards” on ministers, a separate cadre of managers were needed—what were to become the Chief Executives and managers of 140 executives agencies.
The official doctrine of “apartheid” in South Africa held that the different races should be “separate but equal”. This was the spirit of “Next Steps”—that the management of implementation through executive agencies would be put on a separate but equal footing to that of policy-work in central Ministries. The reality was also rather like apartheid practice—separation, but never equal. As one Permanent Secretary was to put it a decade later, “those that can do policy, those that can’t run agencies”.
In practice of course even the separation did not fully work—with many agencies playing a significant role in policy-making and even in many cases their chief executive being the senior policy-adviser to ministers (eg Prisons, Inland Revenue, Customs, etc).
Professional Skills for Government—Deepening the Divide (2003)
The Committee has already examined the role of Professional Skills for Government (PSG) in the last Parliament and at the time (2007) in my evidence to the Committee I said: “The continuation into PSG of the Next Steps solution of separating policy-making and implementation (this time by making them separate professions) compounds the problems of faulty policy-making and poor delivery. PSG does nothing to bridge the divide between “thinkers” and “doers” and may even make it more problematic”.
I have also said before that it is passing strange that whilst “fast streamers” destined for the top are encouraged to take placements in “industry” they are never, or rarely, encouraged to go and work in hospital, school, police force, or even one of the civil service’s own agencies. That is clearly work for the “hands”. Ev 100 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
Separating the Roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service So we come to the current move to separate the roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, and make the latter a job for a Permanent Secretary outside of the “core” of Cabinet Office, No. 10 and the Treasury. An uncharitable, but probably not too inaccurate summary of this proposal would be—“those who can do policy (Cabinet Secretary) and those who can’t get the tedious job of managing the civil service”. For many it will clearly signal that the route to the top is still, and will remain, doing “policy-work” divorced from implementation. If the proposal was to have two roles at the top, one as head of the Cabinet Office and Civil Service and the other Cabinet Secretary, that might at least make more sense. But the current proposal simply reinforces all that is problematic about the civil service and has been for decades.
Who Will Exercise the Quasi-Constitutional Roles? As is well known the most senior civil servants play a quasi-constitutional role as well as their policy-advice and implementation roles. One role that is of especial relevance after recent events involving the Secretary of State for Defence is role of the Cabinet Secretary in enforcing the Ministerial Code. This is what the Cabinet Office website said on the matter: “The Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests is appointed by the Prime Minister with two responsibilities: — To provide an independent check and source of advice to government ministers on the handling of their private interests, in order to avoid conflict between those interests and their ministerial responsibilities. — To investigate—when the Prime Minister, advised by the Cabinet Secretary, so decides— allegations that individual ministers may have breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct”. Source: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/prime-ministers-independent-adviser-ministers-interests accessed 19 Oct 2011. I am sure the Committee will want to consider where will, and where should, this sort of responsibility be placed in the new arrangements. November 2011
Written evidence submitted by Sue Cameron (HCS 05) HEAD OF THE HOME CIVIL SERVICE—NEW ARRANGEMENTS Summary The new arrangements for splitting the Head of the Civil Service role are a dog’s dinner. They are not popular with anyone much and they are not satisfactory. In the proposed three way split of HoCS responsibilities between the cabinet secretary, A.N. Other permanent secretary and officials at the Cabinet Office, the role of HoCS will be downgraded. The new HoCS—no matter how able—will not have the same prestige or clout as when the HoCS and cabinet secretary roles were combined. The new set-up is down to personalities—notably that of Jeremy Heywood who is to be the new cabinet secretary. The muddle at the top couldn’t come at a worse time with civil service job cuts, pay freezes, plunging morale and—very likely—strikes. It seems unpopular with cabinet ministers who want their own top officials to concentrate on their departmental work—not civil service management. There is no obvious solution, given where we are, but the sooner the HoCS job and that of cabinet secretary are combined again the better. If combined, the HoCS role could be largely titular—as it will be anyway with a busy permanent secretary doing it. A deputy, who shoulders the real burden—particularly rallying the troops -, could be given a more prestigious title such as Secretary of the Civil Service. Moves to reform the civil service to improve policy implementation will be weakened by the three way split, albeit marginally. Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 101
Responsibility for any reforms should continue to rest mainly with the Cabinet Office and department—as at present. 1. The role of head of the Civil Service, whether combined with the post of cabinet secretary or with that of a departmental permanent secretary, is a part-time job. Yet such is the prestige of the cabinet secretary’s position—THE top job in Whitehall—that nobody minds too much or even notices. The cabinet secretary’s regular access to the Prime Minister also lends the HoCS role real clout. Giving the HoCs role to one of several dozen permanent secretaries automatically downgrades it and the part-time nature of the work becomes all too apparent. This is largely a matter of perception and may be unfair to a new HoCS , who brings energy and flair to the role. Yet perceptions matter—and so does political clout. 2. Running a big department and advising ministers—particularly in the middle of a big row like the UKBA controversy currently engulfing the Home Office—is not going to leave much time for looking after nearly 500,000 civil servants, some 75% of whom work far beyond Whitehall. The cabinet secretary and the PM on the other hand are meant to take an overview of the whole of government. Everyone accepts that they can devote only part of their time to any one area whether it is the economy, a crisis at the Home Office—or the civil service. 3. What makes the new set-up even more confusing is that Jeremy Heywood, the new cabinet secretary, will continue to do some of the key parts of the HoCS job albeit on a shared basis. Mr Heywood, with the new HoCS, will chair the top mandarins’ meetings, advise on constitutional/machinery of government changes and on promotions to Whitehall’s top 200 jobs. No prizes for knowing that if there’s a difference of opinion, Mr Heywood will have the final say. As one insider remarked: “It’ll be game set and match to Jeremy”. 4. Under the new system much of the detailed work on civil service pay and conditions will be done in a third place—the Cabinet Office. So the new HoCS will have to work on the one hand with a new director general in the Cabinet Office, who is apparently going to be appointed to look after nitty gritty civil service matters, and on the other with Mr Heywood. He or she will also have to work with Ian Watmore, the new permanent secetary at the Cabinet Office (a FOURTH boss!). 5. This is happening just as those at the top of Whitehall—including Mr Heywood and the PM—are likely to have to focus on the civil service more than ever before as job cuts, a pay freeze and pension changes bring the threat of widespread strikes. Downgrading the headship of the CS is not going to help morale which may in turn strengthen the chances of children going untaught, taxes going uncollected, etc etc. What a moment to attach a Heath-Robinson contraption to the machinery of government. 6. The main part of the HoCS job that the new holder will do alone seems to be rallying the troops—a job that has assumed much greater importance over the years as the civil service has grown and management styles have changed. Sir Gus O’Donnell has made a huge effort to take a high profile with ordinary civil servants, travelling round the country whether awarding prizes at civil service sports events or making inspirational speeches, telling new recruits: “When you go to dinner parties do you want to be able to say that you work with an accountancy firm and you’ve spent the day helping some company pay less tax? Or do you want to say you’ve been working with the environment department to help save the planet or with the G8 group of countries to reduce child poverty?” Sir Gus has been a great defender of the public service and the public service ethic. The new head—and this will not be his or her fault in any way—is going to find it harder to make the same impact. 7. The reason for the inelegant new setup is down to personalities. Jeremy Heywood does not want to take on the HoCS role (apart from the bits of the job he DOES want to do of course.). This is perfectly understandable—it is not where his particular expertise lies. He wants to concentrate on policy as he has done throughout his career and there is a general view that he does it brilliantly. He won the confidence of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and David Cameron is now anxious to keep him. There can be no question that being cabinet secretary is a huge job on its own—never more so than now with a Coalition government. Managing two parties, particularly when they are disagreeing, as in the case of a referendum, involves significantly more work than being cabinet secretary in a one party government. 8. Perhaps the best solution would be to combine the two top jobs again, if not now then next time round. If the cabinet secretary did not want to spend much time on the HoCS role he/she could be the titular head and leave the rest to someone else. It would be a better solution in terms of PR and is in fact what is going to happen in effect when a permanent secretary takes on the HoCS role. 9. Why not acknowledge the fact and appoint someone in the Cabinet Office with the title of deputy HoCS? For preference he or she could be given a more prestigious title than “deputy”—Civil Service Secretary perhaps? But the job spec would be to assist and deputise for the HoCS and co-ordinate some of the other work in the Cabinet Office. 10. When it comes to advising on changes in the civil service that may be needed to further government policies, Mr Heywood will be in the driving seat. There is always room for improvement in an organisation like the civil service—and strong efforts have been made in the last few years to upgrade its performance. Major reorganisation of the CS, however, is not likely to deliver more successful results on the policy front. The trick is for ministers to get the policy right in the first place. Ev 102 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
Comments on specific questions rose by the committee 11. The HoCS should champion the civil service, particularly in defending the values of impartiality, appointment on merit and the right to be given a hearing by ministers. The HoCS also has a crucial role in boosting morale, acting as arbiter on civil service complaints if they cannot be resolved lower down the hierarchy, advising the PM on machinery of government changes and looking after promotions to the top 200 posts in Whitehall. Most of these responsibilities can be shared or delegated. 12. While the post should involve an oversight of civil service management, the HoCS does not have to be responsible for the day to day issues of pay, recruitment, training etc. These will normally rest with the Cabinet Office. 13. The new head should not be able to control and direct the whole of the civil service. Even less should he or she be running some major structural reform scheme from the centre? Government has become far too centralised—particularly under Labour though it started earlier under the Tories. A return to cabinet government under the Coalition has been most welcome. 14. Civil servants should be controlled and directed by their own departmental ministers and they should be deployed according to those ministers’ priorities. 15. The HoCS should be accountable to the PM. As the committee’s own report on Change in Government makes clear, neither the PM nor Francis Maude, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, has signed up to major structural reform of the civil service. No HoCS is going to undertake something that the PM doesn’t want— perhaps understandably. It would be a huge distraction to attempt a reorganisation of the civil service when the government’s priorities are to get the deficit down and growth up. 16. As it is, under the leadership of Sir Gus O’Donnell, a great deal has been done to improve civil service capacity and to boost skills with far more professionals employed—statisticians, finance officers, etc etc. As the committee has noted, Francis Maude has now launched a major up-skilling programme to improve project management in the civil service—long a weakness. There may also be a benefit in improving commissioning and monitoring skills but that will not require a structural revolution in the civil service. 17. Work is already underway on how to get civil servants from different departments to work together more effectively. I understand there is a civil service roadshow on how people can work across departments and across grades which Gus has taken to places like Gateshead. There seems to be a feeling that this kind of cross-departmental work is often most effective at local level, close to the front line. When it is done at a very senior level in Whitehall, there is a risk of mess and muddle, with nobody sure who is in charge or who is accountable. At national level such “joined-up” projects should start with a committee of the relevant cabinet ministers. 18. Whether new appointments should be subject to a pre-appointment hearing by MPs should be a matter for the PM. In practice the new HoCS is unlikely to appear before MPs until after he or she has been appointed. November 2011
Supplementary written evidence submitted by Sir Douglas Wass GCB (HCS 06) The Head of the Civil Service In this note I discuss the need for the retention of the post of Head of the Civil Service (HCS) and consider whether indeed any arrangement for establishing a unique authority for all civil service matters is necessary. I also consider briefly the question whether if the post is retained it is satisfactory, as is proposed, for it to be separated from that of the Cabinet Secretary. The post, or more accurately the term, HCS, was only established in the mid-1920s. It was the brainchild of Sir Warren Fisher, then the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. Fisher was greatly concerned with matters of organization and financial control—not just in the Treasury but in departments generally, and he made several innovations in civil service practice. One of the most important was that spending departments should have greater responsibility for their expenditure and should themselves be accountable to Parliament for what they had spent in any financial year. Fisher ruled further that they should establish a post of Accounting Officer, who would be appointed by the Treasury and would be personally answerable to the Public Accounts Committee. He also decided that the Treasury would normally appoint as Accounting Officer the permanent head of the spending department concerned, thus ensuring that the cost of any innovation or project a department might undertake was fully taken into consideration by the proposers . He was able to make this innovation partly because by then he was established as HCS and had the authority to impose his will on departments. Although Fisher was the Treasury Permanent Secretary he was not greatly interested in finance and expenditure as such and delegated responsibility in these areas to his deputies. It is significant that he played no part in the decision the Government took to rejoin the Gold Standard in 1925 nor in the decision to leave it in 1931. I mention this example of what the post of HCS at one time enabled its holder to do, as background to the more general question whether a modern HCS would be able to impose his will on departments at large in the Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 103
same manner and indeed whether it is in the public interest that any civil servant should have the authority today to make the sort of decisions that Fisher took.
The civil service is now less centralised than it was in Fisher’s day and indeed than it was thirty years ago. When I was the joint HCS the service was subject to a well-established common code (known as Estacode) and to a great deal of control from the centre (in fact the Treasury and the Cabinet Office). But although the rules on Recruitment, Pay, Grading, Complementing, Superannuation, Security and Conduct were laid down by the centre, their implementation was largely in the hands of departments. Most of the detailed administration of these rules and their execution was exercised at the working level and did not involve the HCS or the Permanent Secretary of the Departments implementing them. Indeed the HCS had very little involvement in day-to-day matters. If there was a serious dispute between a spending department and one of the two central departments it could of course involve the Permanent Secretary in each of the two disputing parties. But such disputes were rare. The spending department normally accepted the ruling by the central department, and the central department Permanent Secretary did not need to be labeled “HCS” to exert his authority in the matter under dispute. He was accepted as the service-wide authority on the matter in question.
A good deal of this system remains in place, but the centre has yielded a certain amount of independence to departments in such matters as pay, grading and complementing, and the system works through a much more general control from the centre.
My contention is therefore that the designation HCS is now largely superfluous and could be dropped without any loss to the effectiveness with which the Civil Service is managed, either in terms of the formulation of the rules or their implementation. The service is now more federal in its practice, and the constituent parts of the federation operate in their own way and according to their own requirements—much more so than was at one time the case. Other parts of the public services operate in a similarly federal way. The police and fire services are both “federal” and operate subject only to a general control from the Home Office and their local police and fire authorities. Neither has as a national Head. The Metropolitan Police are regarded as the premier force, and provincial forces take a good deal of notice of what the Commissioner of the Met says and does; but he is in no sense their chief. This organization does not prevent the Home Office from exercising a national control over all the police forces in such matters as pay, superannuation etc.
There is one area of management where the civil service does perhaps require a unique head and where there is a good deal for a senior Permanent Secretary to do (whether or not designated HCS) and that is the matter of top civil service appointments. For a long time this has been handled collectively by the HCS in close association with a committee of selected departmental permanent secretaries—the Senior Appointments Selection Committee. All promotions and appointments to posts at the level of Deputy Secretary and above are submitted to, and considered by this Committee. Its chairman has been, ex officio, the HCS (or one of them when the post was divided). The chairman submits the conclusions of the committee’s recommendations to the Prime Minister together with any personal views he may have. The Prime Minister is of course entirely free to accept, modify or reject the recommendations put to him. If the post of HCS were abolished it would still be possible to carry on with present arrangements, but with the post of chairman occupied by either the Cabinet Secretary (as head of the department responsible for general personnel matters) or some other heavyweight eg one of the most senior and experienced Permanent Secretaries in Whitehall. I doubt very much if the incumbent, whether he was the Cabinet Secretary or a departmental heavyweight, would have any difficulty in gaining an audience with the Prime Minister, when he wanted one, to discuss the Committee’s recommendations and his own preferences. The Lords Butler and Armstrong, in their evidence to the Select Committee, said (or perhaps implied) that the close working relationship which exists between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary enables the latter to raise civil service issues (not just senior appointments) with the Prime Minister as part of an ongoing process of regular contact. I do not dispute this argument, but it can be overstated. In my experience Prime Ministers do not have a great deal of time to think about the Civil Service, except perhaps when there is some delicate or public issue involving the behaviour of civil servants. When this does come up I would expect the Prime Minister to call in the HCS wherever the post was located as well as the Minister of the department involved (if the issue was confined to one department). Indeed there would be some positive value in having the Prime Minister advised not only by the Cabinet Secretary but also by the HCS, who would not necessarily have the same point of view and might indeed take slightly different positions. I do therefore believe that the combination of the posts of Cabinet Secretary and HCS, which has existed for thirty years is not quite so desirable as some have held. Nor do I think that if the post of HCS were formally abolished would there be any real difficulty in providing the Prime Minister with advice on pan-civil service matters. The Permanent Secretary of the relevant central department (ie the Cabinet Office or the Treasury) would be there to perform that duty.
Nothing in the document circulated by the Cabinet Office giving a specification of the role of the HCS causes me to reconsider the views I have expressed. The document is written at a high level of generality and vagueness and takes little account of the collegiate and collective way that administration is carried out in the civil service. Critics could no doubt argue that the civil service is too much given to collective decision-taking. But the style and processes that characterize it do promote the balanced and measured evolution of policy and the minimization of ill-considered initiatives and ideas. Most civil servants see this as a strength rather than a weakness. Ev 104 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
One item mentioned in the specification document does however merit consideration, viz. that the incumbent should be “the public face of the Civil Service, internally and externally”. This is a rather vague concept but it should not be dismissed out of hand on this account. For my part I am sceptical whether the rank and file of the civil service have much awareness of the HCS as a factor in their lives. The leadership they see as relevant to what they are doing is their local management (ie their immediate superiors) and the head of their department. The HCS is very remote from their lives and he is unlikely to have anything to say to them which bears on their concerns and preoccupations. There is perhaps one exception to what I have said above, and that is when the HCS has something to say to them on “civil service wide” matters. The two areas where he would have some unique status are conduct and morale. Conduct, in principle, is a service-wide issue and it is a matter of great importance. The rules are laid down in fairly well-defined terms and are generally accepted and adhered to in the Service at large. But they sometimes need to be highlighted and given prominence, for instance where there have been breaches which attract public attention or where there is uncertainty precisely how they should operate in new circumstances. On these occasions a defined HCS can make some general declaration which will be seen as an ex cathedra pronouncement. The other area, morale, is perhaps more difficult. The service does occasionally suffer from a sense that it is not loved by the public—and sometimes not much loved by Ministers themselves. A public expression by the HCS can then do something to restore any wounded feelings that the service may have. This is a somewhat intangible matter and I would not want to overstate the value of such an intervention. But it is difficult to see how this would be possible if there were no identifiable HCS. Of the two matters mentioned above I consider conduct to be the more important. I believe that au fond conduct is a matter best left to the service itself, with ministers of the day standing aside from the definition of what is right and what is not. The service is very jealous of its tradition of loyalty to the government of the day and of its political impartiality. It is also keenly aware of the need to avoid arousing any public criticism of venality through for instance the acceptance of appointments after retirement which may cast doubt on the integrity of those involved. The rules on these matters are well defined, but they may need, from time to time, to be high-lighted, so that the public are made aware of precisely what is admissible and what is not. A precedent for dealing with this sort of situation can be found in the 1930s when a Committee of three senior civil servants was established to investigate the circumstances when it was believed that a Permanent Secretary had taken improper steps to secure a post-retirement business appointment. Their report, which was made public, makes very good reading even half a century after the event. It has a weight and a measure that a statement by a HCS could hardly equal. It might be worth considering whether, if the post of HCS were not to be renewed, a small committee of very senior permanent secretaries might be set up as a standing authority and charged with the task of reviewing from time to time material issues of conduct and of issuing if necessary public statements on this subject. November 2011
Supplementary written evidence submitted by Professor Tony Dean (HCS 08) In November I provided oral evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee on the subject of the role of the Head of the Civil Service. Having now reviewed the helpful evidence from Sir Gus O’Donnell, Francis Maude and the new Head Designate of the Civil Service Sir Bob Kerslake, I would like to add some further points to my original evidence, particularly on the issue of the “wiring diagram”—the split between the Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary roles. 1. First, evidence brought to the Committee has been responsive to many of the concerns identified by earlier witnesses and observers. For example, both the new Cabinet Secretary and the Head of Civil Service will report directly to the Prime Minister; they will be housed in the same suite of offices and will be paid at the same level; and they will share the role of recruiting and supervising Permanent Secretaries. Your final witnesses, including Gus O’Donnell the current Cabinet Secretary and the new Head-Designate of the Civil Service have spoken positively about the new governance architecture. In parallel, the organogram and description of the division of responsibilities of the Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service are helpful in understanding the new leadership structure. 2. I will therefore confine my final comments to three remaining areas of significant concern: The absence of a single point of accountability and leadership at the top of the Civil Service; the distinction in Permanent Secretary reporting relationships between “Service” ministries and “Cross-Cutting” ministries; and the part- time nature of the Head of Civil Service position. 3. First, the important question of leadership: Almost without exception, in the large majority of organizations in the public and private sectors it is usual to see a single, accountable executive or CEO appointed with responsibility to run the organization. It is important that everyone in the organization knows who is in charge. Chief Executives run large and complex manufacturing and IT companies, and local governments, Head Teachers run schools and football teams have managers, and so forth. It is anomalous then that the UK’s Civil Service is to be jointly led at the top. The main justification provided by witnesses for the co-leadership model relates to the increasing breadth and growing complexity of the Cabinet Secretary’s job. For this reason, I agree that it is possible, and may be Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 105
desirable, to split the roles of the previous Cabinet Secretary and to re-distribute them in any number of ways in order to make these roles more manageable and effective. But there should only be one Head of the Civil Service—a single point of accountability for the performance of the Civil Service. No successful, high- performing, organization creates ambiguity about who is ultimately in charge of the day- to-day operations of the organization. This is particularly so where there is a significant change agenda and a need for massive cultural transformation. 4. As I noted in my earlier oral evidence, the Civil Service, with 470,000 employees, is by far the largest and likely the most complex employer in the country. It requires and deserves a single locus of leadership and accountability. This should primarily involve a single point of oversight of the Permanent Secretaries—who comprise the senior leadership team of the Civil Service. 5. My second point is that it makes no sense to divide the leadership and oversight of the Permanent Secretaries between the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service. This is unusual and inadvisable in general, and in this case is poorly supported by the notional distinction between “Service” and “Cross- Cutting” Permanent Secretaries. Public service reforms in the UK and around the world have for the past decade or so emphasized the cross- cutting nature of all major policy files and the importance of senior leaders crossing departmental boundaries in planning, policy and delivery. Likewise, public service leaders have been working hard to emphasize the “Service” part of the Civil Service. All departments are working on cross-cutting files and are also in the business of providing professional services internally and/or providing external services to citizens. The distinction between “Service” and Cross-Cutting” in the context of this organizational change is somewhat artificial and more than a little contrived. This will play out in many ways but an obvious example would be where the Head of Civil Service is on a cross country tour to meet staff (hardly the stuff of a part-time job) and talks to a mixed-departmental audience of “service” and “cross-cutting” staff. If I was a staff member of one of the Cabinet Secretary’s “cross-cutting” ministries I would wonder why my boss wasn’t in the room. After all, my Permanent Secretary reports to the Cabinet Secretary. 6. Compounding the concerns mentioned above, my third concern is the part-time nature of the Head of Civil Service job. I am surprised that this has not concerned many witnesses. The Committee was told more than once that being the Head of the Civil Service “has always been a part-time job”. Like other aspects of legacy thinking in public sector organizations, just because the “Head of Service” job has been one part of the broader job of the Cabinet Secretary, it does not mean that the job should always be part-time. Far from it. This was an opportunity to make the position a full-time during a period of upheaval and challenge in the country and in the Civil Service. The decision to proceed with a part-time and bifurcated CEO model downplays the importance of leadership in driving organizational change and building high-performing organizations. It is an opportunity missed. 7. Mr. Kerslake’s testimony before the Committee was exemplary and he left no-one in doubt that he would make the very best of the job as it is currently structured. I predict that the new Head of the Civil Service will spend considerable more than 50% of his time in leading the Civil Service and he should be supported in doing this. The more leadership the better in terms of building the capacity of the organization. This would equip the Civil Service to meet both the needs of the government of the day, and citizens, with more pride, innovation and professionalism. 8. I take this opportunity to thank the Committee Chair and members for affording me the privilege of appearing at PASC as a witness and for this opportunity to add some final remarks. I look forward to reading your report. December 2011
Supplementary written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Peter Riddell (HCS 09) 1. The new role of Head of the Civil Service separate from the Cabinet Secretary can be made to work, subject to certain conditions, discussed below. But doubts persist about how long the new Head can also remain a Permanent Secretary at the head of a large department. The new arrangements have clearly been shaped to reflect the personalities involved, their backgrounds and preferences, but that is hardly unusual or unique. 2. The inquiry by the committee, and, in particular, the clarification of the new arrangements by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary, and by Sir Bob Kerslake, the new Head, have addressed many of the original doubts about the split. 3. First, the responsibilities of the Head of the Civil Service have grown since the days of Lord Armstrong and Sir Douglas Wass more than a quarter of a century ago. It is no longer possible for one person to combine the role with being Cabinet Secretary as Lord Armstrong did from 1983 until 1988. Indeed, the last two holders of the office have not done so. Various parts of the role have been delegated to other people, either formally or informally. The difference now is that, instead, of delegation, there is to be a split in the roles. 4. Second, the “wiring diagram” offers a persuasive explanation of how the roles will be divided. It reflects some of the de facto division which has occurred in the last few years with Sir Jeremy Heywood co-ordinating Ev 106 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
policy in his role as Permanent Secretary, 10 Downing Street, though he will now have additional responsibilities for collective decision-making as Cabinet Secretary. 5. The central issue, as Sir Bob Kerslake said in his oral evidence on 19 December, is not what the two do separately but what they do together. The key here is the personal relationship between Sir Jeremy and Sir Bob. They have already been keen to project the impression of a dual, linked leadership underpinned by a joint private office. Given their complementary interests and backgrounds, these arrangements have the potential to be successful. But this would not necessarily apply with different people. 6. Sir Bob’s evidence to the committee set out a clear plan about he intends to organise his life with two days a week as Head and relying on strong support both in the Cabinet Office and within his department. That looks fine on paper but life seldom works out so smoothly. Urgent problems tend to develop unexpectedly and they could easily occur for Sir Bob at the same time both in the Communities and Local Government Department and in his role as Head of the Civil Service. Sir Bob’s confidence that he is sure he can “keep both jobs effectively covered” may work in the short-term, But it is bound to be tested over the longer-run: for instance, in handling the arrival of a new Communities Secretary after any reshuffle. So whatever the current will, the intention that the new Head of the Civil Service should also be a departmental Permanent Secretary looks least likely to last. 7. The underlying question is how far the new arrangements strengthen the drive for a more effective Civil Service. What matters here is less whether the old Cabinet Secretary’s post is divided than whether there is a clear plan for change and the aspirations for corporate leadership of the Civil Service are fulfilled. January 2012
Supplementary written evidence submitted by the Cabinet Office (HCS 10)
Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Head of the Cabinet Office Civil Cabinet Service Secretary
Permanent Permanent Secretaries:- Secretaries:- Service Cross Cutting
Permanent Secretary Cabinet Office
Cabinet Office Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 107
Table 1 CABINET SECRETARY AND HEAD OF THE CIVIL SERVICE ROLES The Cabinet Secretary and the Head of the Civil Service will work together to deliver the Government’s agenda by maintaining…. 1. Our enduring Civil Service values—impartiality, honesty, integrity and objectivity, now enshrined in law. Our duty to uphold those values. 2. A shared vision for the Civil Service: trusted, innovative, professional, efficient, diverse, modern, unified, flexible. Maintain capacity to serve future Governments. 3. A very close working relationship to support the Government of the day. [Area of responsibility] Head of the Civil Service Cabinet Secretary Title Head of the Civil Service responsible Secretary to the Cabinet responsible to all to the Prime Minister and the Minister Ministers for the running of Cabinet for the Civil Service. Government.
Core role purpose [sic] Responsible for providing professional Ensuring collective decision-making in and corporate leadership to the Civil support of the agreed Programme for Service and enhancing the immediate Government; high-quality, objective and longer-term capability of the Civil advice and support to the Prime Minister Service with strong governance and and Deputy Prime Minister in all aspects accountability. The Civil Service values of their roles; and, working with the will be promoted, embedded and Head of the Civil Service, ensuring the safeguarded. This will be combined Civil Service has the leadership and clear with the existing departmental role. policy focus necessary to deliver the Government’s agenda.
Day to day nature of Whitehall and Outward Facing: Policy and Minister Focused: operating at role working with all Permanent Secretaries the centre of Whitehall, working closely to lead the immediate Civil Service with departments, to ensure smooth reform agenda and build improved functioning of the policy machine; acting capability; enhancing governance and as guardian of collective government and accountability; strong focus on wider propriety across the Coalition public service reform. Government; commanding the confidence of all Ministers.
Cabinet Option to attend Cabinet as appropriate Secretary to Cabinet. [see paragraphs 39Ð40].
Cabinet Committees Attends relevant Cabinet Committees Advise Prime Minister on formation of as appropriate. Cabinet Committees.
Machinery of Joint role in advising Prime Minister of suggested changes. Government
Cabinet Manual Leads on Civil Service issues. Cabinet Secretary lead on all other issues.
Propriety Primary focus on Civil Service Primary focus on Ministerial, Special propriety and guardian of the Civil Advisers and wider Government propriety. Service Code.
Honours Chair State Honours. Chair Main Honours.
Royal Liaison, Select Liaison with the Palace on Civil Key links between Palace and HM Committees Service issues. Attends Select Government. Attends Select Committees Committees when called. when called.
National Security No direct role. Leads on national security and Member of National Security Council.
PM Meetings Regular joint bilateral.
Senior Civil Service Responsibility for succession planning; Joint role in advising Prime Minister on Appointments Chair of Senior Leadership Committee. Senior Civil Service and other appointments. Attends Senior Leadership Committee. Ev 108 Public Administration Committee: Evidence
[Area of responsibility] Head of the Civil Service Cabinet Secretary
Permanent Secretary Line Management of delivery Line Management of cross cutting and Management Permanent Secretaries. national security Permanent Secretaries.
Permanent Secretaries’ Joint role on Permanent Secretaries’ Remuneration Committee. Remuneration
Wednesday morning Joint chair, and similarly on Permanent Secretaries’ informal meetings and away meetings [of all days, as they cover policy and management. Permanent Secretaries]
Top 200 [most senior Chairs Top 200. Attends Top 200 events. civil servants]
Governance Chair of Civil Service Steering Board Attendance at, and close working with, the and key sub-groups (unless delegated). Head of the Civil Service on all main governance committees.
Permanent Secretaries’ Member as required (in departmental Chair as required (eg Permanent policy groups capacity). Secretaries Spending Review group).
External External face of the Civil Service for Supporting role. communications, media and recruitment etc. Lead on outreach and Civil visible leadership of Civil Service Service awards across the UK. Lead on Civil Service awards, Diversity awards etc.
Civil Service Lead work on Capability Reviews and Supporting role. capability, governance Departmental Boards, and senior and pay salaries review body.
Workforce issues and Lead on overall workforce planning, Supporting role. Induction and Training recruitment and pensions reform. Basecamp for Senior Civil Service, induction for Fast Stream etc.
What next? 1. Internal communications: plan to communicate internally and externally the new model and reform agenda. 2. Practical arrangements; one single Private Office supporting both Head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary. 3. Engaging the Civil Service and Ministers to establish a new reform agenda. 4. Implementing the reform agenda alongside delivering the Government priorities. November 2011
Supplementary written evidence submitted by Sir Bob Kerslake (HCS 11) REPORTING LINES Reporting lines for Permanent Secretaries (and other roles currently managed by Sir Gus O’Donnell) will be split between the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service. The Cabinet Secretary will be responsible for Secretariats and other cross-cutting functions (including HMT); and for foreign policy (including FCO and DfID). The Head of the Civil Service will be responsible for the domestic policy departments, and for the devolved administrations. Cabinet Secretary Head of the Civil Service Permanent Secretaries Simon Fraser (FCO) Lin Homer (DfT) Mark Lowcock (DfID) Ursula Brennan (MoD) Nick MacPherson (HMT) Una O’Brien (DH) JIC Chairman Martin Donnelly (BIS) Peter Ricketts (NSA) Jonathan Stephens (DCMS) Ivan Rogers (EGIS) Moira Wallace (DECC) Paul Jenkins (TSol) Bronwyn Hill (Defra) Public Administration Committee: Evidence Ev 109
Cabinet Secretary Head of the Civil Service Stephen Laws (Parliamentary Counsel) Perm Sec DfE John Beddington (Chief Scientist) Ian Watmore (CO) Jill Matheson (ONS) Robert Devereux (DWP) Perm Sec HMRC Helen Ghosh (HO) Suma Chakrabati (MoJ) Perm Sec NICS Peter Housden (Scottish Government) Gil Morgan (WAG) David Nicholson (NHS) Other Direct Reports Chris Wormald (DPMO) As per departmental responsibilities. Melanie Dawes (EDS) Sue Gray (Propriety and Ethics) Rachel Hopcroft (PPS Cab Sec) PPS No.10
December 2011
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 01/2012 016969 19585 PEFC/16-33-622