Baroness Twycross
Main Page: Baroness Twycross (Labour - Life peer)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for securing this debate. I know it is an important matter to the noble Lord, as it is to your Lordships’ House, to the other place and across the country. As has been noted during the debate, it is also an area in which the noble Lord brings substantial expertise and experience, reflecting his long and distinguished career in government—like the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I was at university at that point—which it is clear that a number of noble Lords who spoke today have benefitted from.
My noble friend Lady Morgan said noble Lords were drawing from their own experience, but I have to say that it is an impressive and slightly daunting collective experience to me, as a relatively new Minister. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, I am on a learning curve. It has been a thoughtful and valuable debate from that perspective, informed by the varied and extensive contribution of noble Lords, many of whom have unique experience and qualifications to speak on the matter.
In my remarks, I will do my best to respond to the various points that were made. I will also make sure that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, who is responsible for the Civil Service, receives a copy of the record of this debate and the highlighted reports, including that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I declare an interest: I was rejected by the Civil Service fast track, which said I was too opinionated—I think it was probably right.
Like many noble Lords, I pay tribute to the outgoing Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, for his service to the country. The noble Lord, Lord Maude, noted the importance of an impartial Civil Service to the change of Government, and that is vital. Nowhere is the importance of an impartial Civil Service more evident than in the instant transition from one Government to the next following a general election, in which the Civil Service manages to pivot seamlessly—although it probably works really hard to make it look seamless—to support the elected Government of the day. My ministerial colleagues and I have greatly appreciated the work of the Civil Service, and we are thankful that its impartiality has allowed us to begin our work right away.
We do not believe that the Civil Service should be politicised and do not intend to allow this to happen on our watch. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mandelson that the portrayal given by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, felt slightly overstated, but I recognise his concerns. I welcome the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, on the checks and balances required.
It was particularly thought-provoking from my perspective to hear beyond that point about impartiality to the wider perspective of what we need from the Civil Service to be able to deliver. I particularly note the contributions from my noble friend Lady Hodge of Barking and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on unwelcome advice being required, as well as the point of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about having a better balance in relation to risk.
As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, among others, noted, the basis for a politically impartial and permanent Civil Service was first set out in the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854. The report urged a move away from recruitment based on patronage and set out the standards that laid the foundation for the modern Civil Service.
As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, stressed, this is about impartiality not independence from government, although I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested that it should be both—so I am clear that there are different views across the House, which is actually quite helpful in a debate of this nature.
The Armstrong memorandum of 1985 set out:
“It is the duty of civil servants to serve their Ministers with integrity and to the best of their ability”.
It said:
“The British Civil Service is a non-political and disciplined career service”.
This was codified in 1996 with the creation of the Civil Service Code, a document that, as has been noted, governs the conduct of civil servants to this day.
My noble friend Lord Hannett referred to the Civil Service Code, which sets out the four values that should be demonstrated: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality, including political impartiality. This, as noble Lords will know and as has been noted, goes back to the Northcote-Trevelyan principles, including that the principle of fair and open competition. It clearly states that civil servants support the Government of the day.
The code’s importance is such that it is now based in statute, as set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. It is a contractual obligation for all members of the permanent Civil Service to abide by the code. The importance of the Civil Service Code is underlined in the newly updated Ministerial Code, which was issued by the Prime Minister earlier this month. It includes this requirement:
“Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code”.
There is an equivalent requirement for special advisers, set out in their own code of conduct. The debate reflected the usefulness of having both a politically impartial Civil Service and special advisers to drive government programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Godson, spoke about the value of spads, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, among others, referred to the role of Ministers in appointments. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 sets out how civil servants should be appointed on the basis of fair and open competition, and outlines that the Civil Service Commission is responsible for publishing a set of recruitment principles.
However, I heard what a number of noble Lords raised about the need to have experts coming in. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act is clear that there can be exceptions to the recruitment process. Indeed, exceptions are a long-established part of bringing talent and expertise into the Civil Service. Often this is to fulfil specialist, short-term or urgent requirements. My noble friend Lord Mandelson gave good examples of how the external talent and perspective of people appointed by Ministers can add to, rather than detract from, the Civil Service.
Where appointments are made by exception to the principle of fair and open competition, requirements are placed in all cases on the employing departments. They must be satisfied, first, that the use of the relevant exceptions route was justified and, secondly, that the individuals in question could uphold the values of the Civil Service Code.
There were over 16,000 appointments without competition in the last two years of the Conservative Government. This put into context the small number of appointments by exception that have been made under the current Administration so far—a point made by my noble friend Lady Morgan.
Indeed, as was noted by noble Lords, last week the independent Civil Service Commission published its report into appointments by exception in July and August. Noble Lords will recall that this was a period of heightened scrutiny of government appointments. The commission found that
“fewer exceptions were made in this period than is typical in a similar length of time”.
Its report also concluded:
“The Commission was largely satisfied with processes in place within departments to apply, consider and approve exception requests”.
I also note, for completeness, that the report found that, as is generally the case, there were some areas for improvement and that there had been two technical breaches with record-keeping issues. The commission defines a technical breach as those
“which have no or minimal impact on the legal requirement that recruitment into the Civil Service is fair, open and based on merit”.
The debate has reflected general support for the value of a permanent, professional and impartial Civil Service in the United Kingdom. Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of absolute trust. They must have confidence that the advice that they receive is candid, objective and honest, and neither determined by the civil servants’ own political views or opinions nor stripped of inconvenient facts or relevant considerations.
My noble friend Lady Hodge raised an interesting point about accountability, and both she and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, discussed how hard it is for outside candidates to get appointed, as I mentioned earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, discussed the undermining of the Civil Service, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, mentioned the impact on the Civil Service of both Brexit and the pandemic. It should be a matter of regret to everyone in your Lordships’ House that the relationship between Ministers and the Civil Service appears to have deteriorated so markedly under the previous Government.
A number of noble Lords gave specific examples of where Ministers have appeared to undermine or publicly comment on civil servants with a detrimental view. I will not comment on specific examples, but I will note them—as all noble Lords should—as well as the potential impact on morale and trust. I feel strongly about morale because, to get a Civil Service that works effectively, we need to have good morale across it.
We need to work across your Lordships’ House to ensure that we get the balance right and that we get the Civil Service that we need to deliver not just for Ministers but for the country. I note the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, about ensuring that we have a self-critical Civil Service. We must address the critical failures that contributed to tragedies such as Grenfell, the infected blood scandal and the Post Office scandal, but there are also wider societal issues in the inquiry reports that Ministers need to address in response. There were also criticisms of how Ministers themselves operated, which we need also to address.
This Government’s relationship with the Civil Service is critical to our delivery of our missions. In his first message to the Civil Service following the general election, the Prime Minister set out his vision for a refreshed relationship between Ministers and civil servants, with openness, collaboration and transparency at its heart. He reiterated his confidence, support and respect for civil servants. I felt that that respect has shone through today’s debate. The Prime Minister’s newly published Ministerial Code confirmed these messages. He set out that Ministers should demand and welcome candid advice, and that Ministers and Permanent Secretaries should have a trusting and positive relationship, with regular opportunities for the exchange of feedback. The code is also clear that Ministers should ensure that government resources, and specifically Civil Service activity, is not used for party-political purposes.
It is worth remembering that underpinning all of this, for both Ministers and civil servants, are the Seven Principles of Public Life—the Nolan principles—which are common standards to which we are all held that are vital for ensuring that we are working together and pulling in the same direction in the public interest.
As was noted by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Liddle from his own experience, there is an important role for special advisers here. They are a critical part of the team supporting Ministers. They add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers, while reinforcing—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, outlined—the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support. They can help Ministers on matters where the work of government and the work of the government party overlap and where it would be inappropriate for permanent civil servants to become involved.
In response to a number of points from noble Lords on how the Civil Service could be supported and improved, over the coming months the Cabinet Office and the Treasury will continue to work with departments to improve productivity and efficiency, both in the public sector and in the Civil Service. More detail on this work will be provided at the next spending review, due to conclude in spring next year. As part of this, the Government are also developing a strategic plan for a more efficient and effective Civil Service, including bold options to improve skills, harness digital technology and drive better outcomes for public services.
I shall turn now to points that have not yet been covered. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, raised specific points about the PPS role in No. 10. The principal private secretary role has been advertised externally. I would like to confirm that Ms Pandit was appointed through an exception route, which was approved by the Civil Service Commission, and was on secondment from the NHS. The vacancy was announced on 6 October; she is able to apply for the role substantively, should she so wish.
In relation to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, about whether I could confirm that the Prime Minister will clear the appointment of a new Cabinet Secretary with the leader of the Opposition, I assure the noble Lord that all the appropriate processes will be followed in connection with what is a critical appointment, not just for the Government but for the country as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Maude, asked about improving the transparency of appointments by exception, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. The Civil Service Commission recently confirmed that it will change its policy on the publication of information about exceptions, which it has considered. These are now published monthly, rather than annually, so as to demonstrate the commission’s commitment to transparency and maintain public confidence. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this change.
My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe asked whether the Government would reconsider the recommendations of the Constitution Committee to give a role for the Civil Service Commission when senior civil servants depart. I will write to the noble Baroness on this matter, since it is something that requires careful consideration. I also reaffirm to my noble friend that this Government are very much committed to the Civil Service values, including, but not limited to, impartiality.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport spoke about her experience, and I thank her for her contribution, both in today’s debate and in local government. I agree wholeheartedly about the professionalism of civil servants, particularly in the past few years when they, and the nation as a whole, faced a number of unprecedented challenges. I am pleased to hear that she has had an excellent relationship with the Welsh Government Civil Service based in Cardiff, and it is heartening to hear her speak so highly of those with whom she worked, even when they did not see eye to eye on some of the funding decisions.
On the topic of Civil Service morale and turnover, it is a source of great regret that hard-working civil servants across the UK feel this way. I shall certainly ensure that the House is updated in due course, when my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, reports on her plan to increase productivity through technology.
My noble friend Lady Hodge asked about ministerial accountability and diversity of civil servants’ backgrounds. This is a really pertinent point. In relation to the principle of ministerial accountability and the need for general diversity in the Civil Service, while it is true that the system has changed significantly since 1918, the principle that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and the public, and the civil servants to Ministers, remains important in our system. It was reasserted in the recently published Ministerial Code.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised a point about candid advice, which I agree is a critical function of the Civil Service. The noble Lord may have seen that the importance of candid advice was highlighted in the new Ministerial Code, which sets out the Prime Minister’s expectation that Ministers should demand, and welcome, candid advice.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will not be surprised to hear, I did not entirely agree with many of her points on EDI. The majority of staff time spent on diversity staff networks is voluntary and unpaid, and we believe that staff networks have a valuable purpose. However, the allocation of working time spent on cross-government staff networks is an agreement between the staff network volunteers and their departments as employers. All civil servants should follow the standards set out in the Civil Service Code and Civil Service Management Code in relation to all aspects of their roles.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, about the politicisation of the Department of Health is not one that I or this Government recognise, but it is useful to hear alternative views in this debate. One noble Lord raised the issue of groupthink, and again, it is always useful to hear alternative views.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Turnbull, raised the appointment of Jonathan Powell as the new National Security Adviser, and I am pleased that they agree that he is well suited to the role. I had more to say on that point, but I am keen to respond to some of the other points.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I welcome that there is broad agreement between our Benches because I feel it is vital to both parties and to government in general that parties on both sides of the House agree on the importance of how we approach policy on the Civil Service. The noble Baroness made a number of informed and specific points in this debate, not least from her own professional experience, and I would be happy to meet to discuss them further. She asked specifically about updating the senior leadership appointments protocol. This is currently being updated and will be published in due course.
I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Maude, and others who raised points about the Civil Service Commission and its independence—I am trying to get through my notes—and I will write to noble Lords about the duty of candour, not least because I know that it is of huge interest, not just to noble Lords who are present today but to your Lordships’ House generally.
In conclusion, I felt it was fitting to hear the personal anecdotes from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Old Windsor, and his account of the early days of the first lockdown. It felt like a fitting end to the main part of the debate, demonstrating the value of the impartial Civil Service in keeping things going. I also enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and would welcome the opportunity to talk to him as well.
I thank everyone who has contributed to this important and fascinating debate, and particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for initiating it. As the Prime Minister said, this Government is one of service. We continue to strengthen our relationship with civil servants while ensuring that the Civil Service remains impartial. We will continue this work and will continue to protect the very foundation of a non-politicised, impartial Civil Service.