Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000
JANE KENNEDY
MP, SIR HAYDEN
PHILLIPS KCB AND
MR NICK
SMEDLEY
40. Would you agree with me that local authorities
with the financial pressures that are on them, social workers
in particular, and the Benefits Agency do not exactly have people
available to start taking on the additional duties which this
indicates you are possibly looking for them to do?
(Mr Smedley) We are not talking about huge numbers
here, if you think of the Benefit Agency's clientele and client
group which is very significant. We are talking here maybe about
5,000 visits a year. For the Benefits Agency if we went down that
route, and for many local authorities, it is quite a drop in the
ocean.
41. I have to tell the three witnesses here
that in the real world the Benefits Agency and social workers
do not have that spare capacity to do what they are doing now,
let alone have any additional duties. I would ask you to remove
those names immediately from your list.
(Jane Kennedy) I think to do that would be to close
down our options which are important options for us to consider
and for local authorities to consider, for example, in enhancing
the role that they play. I think it is important to underline
how strongly we feel about improving the local nature of these
service so that, instead of visitors visiting once a year from
London, they will be much more locally based and organised. I
would expect that that will be a benefit and will in fact enhance
the nature of the relationship that we were talking about a few
moments ago. The reason why I resist the invitation to remove
the Benefits Agency and local authorities from the list is because
they are saying to us, "Actually we could undertake this
role". We would not be expecting them to do it out of their
existing resources, and that is part of the consultation we will
undertake.
42. Minister, will you ensure that there will
be sufficient resources to local authorities or whoever if they
do take this job to do the job properly and not from their existing
resources?
(Jane Kennedy) Yes.
Mr Winnick
43. Minister, I think everyone would agree that
the Public Trust Office has not been a glowing success, in fact,
and one recalls the verdict of the Public Accounts Committee in
1994. Does anyone accept any responsibility for what occurred?
It cannot be you because you have not been in the job for a very
long time. We will acquit you, you will be pleased to hear.
(Jane Kennedy) I did try to explain at the outset
that there were a number of factors which led to the failure of
the Public Trust Office in performing its functions as has been
highlighted by the PAC.
44. That was not my question, with respect.
Has anyone accepted responsibility for the past failures?
(Jane Kennedy) Collectively I suppose.
45. Perhaps it is for Sir Hayden.
(Sir Hayden Phillips) I think this is a natural role
for me to perform.
46. How long have you been doing this particular
job in the Lord Chancellor's Department?
(Sir Hayden Phillips) Two years last week. We are
in the same bind as you, Mr Winnick.
Chairman
47. Do not let us be mealy-mouthed, you fired
the Chief Executive, did you not?
(Sir Hayden Phillips) Can we come to that in a moment,
Chairman, separately? I think there are three things that with
hindsight should have been done better. The first, as you mentioned,
was to incorporate in the key targets of the Agency in 1994 the
then recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. That was
not done and I do not know why. Following last year's hearing
with them, and yesterday's, we have moved a whole series of targets
into place that meet their criticisms.
Mr Winnick
48. If we can take it a step at a time. You
say the recommendations and criticisms made by the Public Accounts
Committee in 1994 were not taken up and implemented, but who would
have been responsible for doing that, the Chief Executive?
(Sir Hayden Phillips) The newly appointed Chief Executive
and the Department because the agreement as to what the targets
of the Agency should be is made between the Department and the
Chief Executive, it is a joint responsibility.
49. What about the political role? Who would
have been the minister?
(Sir Hayden Phillips) It was under the previous administration.
50. Yes, obviously it would have been under
the previous administration, I know when the general election
took place. Which minister, would it have been the Lord Chancellor?
(Sir Hayden Phillips) It was part of the Lord Chancellor's
Department then and Lord Mackay was the Lord Chancellor.
51. To put it bluntly, and obviously I am not
putting anyone in the dock, it is too late in the day, but in
order to recognise what occurred there was, in fact, a failure
of responsibility all down the senior line, was there not? The
minister responsible, the Chief Executive, the most senior civil
servants, they simply did not do what was recommended by the Public
Accounts Committee at the time.
(Sir Hayden Phillips) This is easy to do with the
benefit of hindsight and I would find it as easy to do with the
benefit of hindsight as clearly you can do. I do not think that
it is right to say that this whole thing was a complete disaster
right from the start. What I am trying to identify is those things
which I think have led progressively over time to growing criticism.
In the first three years of the Agency they were hitting their
key performance indicators extremely well and it was perceived
to be a substantial success, both in those terms and in the terms,
Mr Winnick, you have drawn attention to of the personal relationship
developed between staff and clients. I do not think I want by
anything I say to paint a picture of total disaster. What I think
we are saying is that what has become increasingly clear is that
the Agency was, if I can put it this way, too under managed and
under resourced to become a modern public sector organisation
and it had serious failings in the financial management area which
the PAC criticised, quite rightly, and which we are now putting
right. I am trying to give what I hope is a reasonably balanced
picture of some of the good things that occurred as well as some
of the things that occurred which we now have to rectify.
52. Clearly there were some good things, the
letter that I quoted and the things you have just mentioned illustrate
that, but nevertheless it is not an overall picture that one would
like to see repeated. Can I just ask you or the Minister, why
was the successful experience in other parts of the Department,
the Court Service, the Public Record Office and the Land Registry,
not applied, the sort of managerial role and oversight and competence,
to the Public Trust Office?
(Sir Hayden Phillips) Basically I think there were
two reasons for that. The first was that in the early years of
the Agency, and traditionally before that, the Public Trust Office
was doing quite well according to its published targets and it
was not an area of Government that had been under scrutiny. I
think people felt it was business as usual, an acceptable system,
acceptable to clients, and let it go and did not pay the sort
of attention to it which we have now had to pay. I think that
was not true in the Public Record Office which had a high and
separate profile or, indeed, in the creation of the Court Service
which is a very deep business and is an absolutely central part
of ministers' responsibilities. As the Chairman said at the beginning,
this was, as it were, slightly more on the edge of departmental
activity.
53. Somewhat of a backwater that no-one worried
about too much.
(Sir Hayden Phillips) As we know, and you can see
other parts of Government similar in nature, if they are neglected
then eventually you have to pay a price and turn it around and
get it right, and that is what happened here.
54. A few parliamentary questions at the time
would not have done any harm, would they?
(Sir Hayden Phillips) I think you are absolutely right.
I would not dream of saying anything other than that would be
excellent.
Mr Stinchcombe
55. Minister, I want to go back to some of the
questions that you have previously been asked about the chronology
and also the cost, just so I can clarify matters. The Quinquennial
Review was published in November 1999, was it?
(Jane Kennedy) Yes.
56. And your Department's response, Making
Changes, was published in April this year?
(Jane Kennedy) Yes.
57. One of the submissions that we have received
was from a District Judge who is the author of books concerning
the mentally disabled and also the parent of a child with severe
learning disabilities, who tells us that his view of the Quinquennial
Review is as follows: "...that is inaccurate and incomplete.
The impression is gained by anyone with experience in this field
that the authors did not recognise the true role of the PTO and
that closure of this executive agency (and the disposal of its
valuable building) was a pre-determined objective." I take
it those are impressions of the Quinquennial Review that you do
not share?
(Jane Kennedy) That is right.
58. Paragraph 1.07 of Making Changes
tells us "The reforms set out in this booklet have been greatly
influenced by the clear diagnosis of the problems in the PTO set
out in the Quinquennial Review" and that your reforms build
on the conclusions reached in that review.
(Jane Kennedy) Yes.
59. It follows, does it not, that if there are
inaccuracies and incompletenesses in the Quinquennial Review as
identified by this particular submission then those would not
have been corrected by your response because you do not accept
those criticisms?
(Jane Kennedy) Put that question to me again, sorry.
| 
