Accountability of Civil Servants: Constitution Committee Report

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank]

My Lords, I was a member of the Constitution Committee when it thought about examining the accountability of civil servants but I am no longer a member and I played no part in the inquiry.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for being responsible for this valuable report, although I was a little confused by both her summary at the beginning of the report and the summary of the recommendations in Chapter 6. The two lists do not match in any clear sequence. However, on the substance, I largely agree with the report’s conclusions.

It is perhaps appropriate to mention that I was a Minister for 11 years in six different departments at different levels of seniority. That was a long time ago but today’s arguments about the relationship between civil servants and Ministers and Members of Parliament echo down the years.

More than that, they are resonant with Herbert Morrison’s book Government and Parliament: A Survey from the Inside, published in 1954—long before the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, brilliantly prised open Whitehall. Morrison says:

“It is my general experience that if the Minister in charge knows what he wants and is intelligent in going about it, he can command the understanding, co-operation and support of his civil servants”.

He goes on:

“The Minister should not be an isolated autocrat, giving orders without hearing or considering arguments for alternative courses”—

from civil servants. He then says:

“What the reader can be sure of is that the British Civil Service is loyal to the Government of the day. The worst that can be said of them is that sometimes”—

and this is familiar—

“they are not quick enough in accustoming themselves to new ideas, but then it is up to the Minister to educate them”.

Herbert Morrison had been at the centre of government in war and in peace for more than a decade. The book remains a very useful historic text on which a new or restless Minister might reflect. However, Morrison had little to contribute on the paragraphs of the report on Select Committees as his book was published long before the present system of Select Committees began to take shape. I remember in the 1970s that members of the Expenditure Committee questioned civil servants about the costs of Concorde but we had an unsatisfactory response as they often claimed commercial confidentiality. I broadly agree with the recommendations on Select Committees but Members of Parliament should not show off to or bully civil servant witnesses, and junior civil servants should not be put on the spot.

Among the eclectic issues that the Times is currently pursuing is the Civil Service and it has been running a special investigation. Splashed across the front page on 14 January there was the headline:

“No, Minister: Whitehall in ‘worst crisis’”.

There was, it said,

“an increasingly bitter power struggle between ministers and mandarins”.

Then on 28 January the Times had a headline:

“Ministers renew battle to control top Civil Service jobs”.

Caroline Spelman, who was sacked from the Cabinet last year, said that although she had been “supported brilliantly” by her civil servants, she could not understand why a Minister could not choose or—by implication—get rid of his or her Permanent Secretary. We have to read between the lines in the report as there is no real flavour of these apparent turbulent events.

There are good reasons for stability at the top of departments. Civil servants should not be sacked or moved elsewhere because of the colour of their eyes, their cautious language or implied political leanings. However it has always been possible for Cabinet Ministers—with determination and the agreement of the Prime Minister—to dispose of a very difficult or unsuitable Permanent Secretary.

It is fully on the record the way in which Roy Jenkins, on his appointment as Home Secretary in 1965, got rid of the formidable Sir Charles Cunningham, even if it took some weeks to achieve. On the matter of choice, when I was appointed Secretary of State for Transport, the head of the Civil Service asked me to choose a candidate for my Permanent Secretary from two senior civil servants, and to find another if I did not like either of them. I am sure there have been many similar occasions under different Governments over the years.

The Government require a dialogue between Ministers and civil servants but there is sometimes a serious dispute. When I was a junior Minister a civil servant might challenge my view and remain persistent. I would say, “All right, talk to the Permanent Secretary and if he agrees with you, he will talk with the Secretary of State”. As the report says, a civil servant has to be “candid and fearless”. In turn a Minister has to be responsive and fair. These are entirely routine matters. Good sense and tolerance, as Herbert Morrison might have put it, are the essence of successful government.

On major projects, in paragraphs 40 to 44, I am not entirely convinced. I cannot see how a single senior civil servant can see through a long project in terms of his or her maturing career. Apart from the lengthy procurement of defence equipment—and not just aircraft carriers—even a major road may take a dozen years from a ministerial decision to completion.

A fortnight ago, the Department for Transport launched HS2—high-speed trains planned to be in service by 2026. I find it unrealistic and against a civil servant’s interest for a single individual to guide the project from the beginning to the end. It is ironic that we will have six, seven or eight different Secretaries of State during that period.

The senior part of the Civil Service has—excellent as it was—changed for the better, as far as I observe it. Sixty years ago, my contemporaries joined the administrative class in the Civil Service mainly from Oxford and Cambridge or the LSE before the age of 25 or 26 and rose steadily towards the top. The current head of the Civil Service, Sir Bob Kerslake—Warwick University—joined the Greater London Council and became chief executive of Hounslow and then Sheffield. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard—Manchester—rose to become a Permanent Secretary after being chief executive of Brent and then Gloucestershire.

If Ministers were impatient in Herbert Morrison’s time, today’s Ministers are impatient about a new kind of civil servant with a different background and much wider training and experience. In reverse, it can be said that today’s Ministers now have less experience of running a large company or institution than 60 years ago. Of the 18 Secretaries of State and heads of department who gathered round the Cabinet table in May 2010, a couple of them had a substantial business career, and others had some commercial, financial or marketing experience. Half of the Cabinet were unfamiliar with a big organisation, which a government department is.

I welcome the report. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay: it is unreasonable that the Government have not responded to the report. I very much regret that. The report points in the right direction: to maintain and improve one aspect of our parliamentary process.

Historical Manuscripts Commission

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Excerpts

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank]

I welcome my noble friend’s debate and I shall learn more today than I can offer. I was not aware that the Historical Manuscripts Commission had been an integral part of the National Archives since 2003 and that the commission grew out of the long-standing Keeper of Public Records; nor had I learnt about the role of Lord Bingham of Cornhill.

The National Archives is an important and impressive institution rich in history, and since my first visit to Richmond I have kept a sharp eye on the Treasury’s temptations. It is quite right that my noble friend is raising this aspect of the National Archives and the danger of downgrading the commission, especially during these lean financial years.

In my intervention today, my comments will relate only to the edge of the specific interest of my noble friend Lord Cormack and a long way from manorial rolls. I want to refer to a short debate that I introduced in the House on 5 February 2008. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, also spoke on that occasion.

In that debate I raised two separate but related questions: how government papers, including ministerial papers, are kept after leaving their departmental offices and when they are not sent to Kew; and the record of major events described in Crown copyright official histories. The responsibility of these matters lay, and still lies, with the Cabinet Office.

In due course, two reports on the future of official histories were produced for “restrictive” internal purposes but were later released following a Parliamentary Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. Although the publication of the current series of books will be completed, I am alarmed that the Government have declined to commit themselves to a new series.

Earlier this year, my noble friend Lord McNally, said, speaking on behalf of the Government, that he hoped to,

“review future work in happier economic circumstances”,

and added:

“It would be a tragedy if we were to allow them”—

the official histories—

“to wither on the vine”.—[Official Report, 17/1/12; col. 547.]

That is how it rests. I am not pursuing the matter further today but I shall remain alert to developments.

I turn to the treatment of government papers. My interest and concern arose when I was seeking papers that were important when I was Secretary of State for Transport from 1976 to 1979. Early in 2005, I asked the department to find them for me but after six months I finally abandoned hope of finding anything worth while. Frankly, the papers in the repository in Hastings were in a mess.

Finally, I wrote to the Secretary of the Cabinet, Gus O’Donnell—now the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell—about the availability and condition of the records of all departments. In reply, he said that departmental record-keeping was now of a higher standard than it used to be, and a previous Cabinet Secretary had given guidance to Permanent Secretaries to resolve the problems of storing and archiving private office papers. This guidance had been revised a couple of years ago and the Cabinet Office would monitor how the departments acted upon it.

I should like to believe that all departments now have a model records system comparable to that at Kew. I am not asking the Minister to comment—I had not warned my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire of my interest—but I hope that he will pass on the message to the Cabinet Office with an up-to-date report on departmental records and papers.