Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 99)
THURSDAY 11 MAY 2000
SIR ANDREW
TURNBULL, MR
JOHN GIEVE,
MS MARGARET
O'MARA AND
SIR STEVEN
ROBSON
80. How many grade fives and above are there
in the Treasury?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) We have something like 60 odd,
65 grade fives.
81. 65 grade fives or above?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) 60 grade fives and about 15
Directors. The total senior Civil Service is something like 80.
82. Can you supply this Sub-Committee with some
information on how many in those categories are women from ethnic
minority groups? That would be useful. In this desire to reflect
the diversity of the United Kingdom population better, what exactly
is being done to improve the situation?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) The first thing is to look at
recruitment. Even if you make that more balanced, it still takes
a long time. It is something you have to do to try and change
the balance of the intake. We have one particular problem. We
recruit large numbers of economists and if we look at the gender
balance of economists in universities, it is pretty heavily weighted
towards men. This may raise a question of not recruiting economists,
but recruiting more generally and training people.
83. Correct me if I am wrong, but when you recruit
from universities it is a much more proactive targeted exercise,
is it not?
(Ms O'Mara) We recruit in two ways from universities
— we recruit from the general Civil Service scheme and we
make it clear that we do not want any gender bias there, but in
a sense we are dependent on where people have expressed preferences
to come. For the reasons Andrew was mentioning, we find that because
we are an economic department, we are probably not as attractive
to women as a first preference as some other departments. That
is one problem for us. We also go out and recruit directly, which
I think you were thinking of as more proactive. Again we have
been very concerned to bring in women and ethnic minorities and
we are trying to establish connections with universities to encourage
this. For instance, when we went out to do our advertising for
the direct recruitment exercise we tried to target universities
with high ethnic intakes. We are also aiming to introduce monitoring
of ethnic minority students.
84. How long has this programme of a much more
proactive approach been up and running?
(Ms O'Mara) We have only done our direct recruitment
this year.
85. What triggered that?
(Ms O'Mara) We were concerned that we were not getting
either the number or the right diversity mix from relying solely
on the Civil Service scheme.
86. It is renowned for being a very male institution,
why has it taken so long to generate a concern that you were not
getting the right gender or ethnic minority mix?
(Ms O'Mara) It is because it is very resource intensive
to do that and so, therefore, even when we decided to, it took
about a year to bring it from the point at which we had taken
the decision. It is something that we have come to understand
is important. These things take time to come through.
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) There is recruitment, there
is also the appraisal and promotion process that we run, and a
thing called an assessment centre to get from D to E, and also
there is a series of interviews to get from E to F, and there
is a panel. What we know is that these can actually have hidden
bias in them. You can set up particular criteria or you can set
up a particular process where women or ethnic minorities feel
at a disadvantage in them in a rather kind of subtle way. We are
looking at it and in this next round we are going to appoint someone
to sit on those assessment centres and say, "Here are ways
in which you set this thing up, which may have discouraged people."
For example, are we saying, "Tell us what you personally
have achieved", and thereby implying that someone who makes
a contribution by building a team and being slightly self-effacing
and not very aggressive is somehow not as good as someone who
is really go-getting and you can really see what they have achieved.
That is the internal hidden bias that we have to address. The
other is a question of retention. A lot of this is about the sense
that a lot of the women we manage to recruit, we do not manage
to retain. Some of this is, are we good enough at creating alternative
working patterns, such as part-time and job sharing, to enable
people with family responsibilities to stay in touch with the
Treasury?
87. Has it still got this kind of workaholic,
long hour culture?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) That is another kind of cultural
thing we have to work on.
88. Are you doing so quite actively?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) Yes.
89. What about open competition? With regard
to these posts that have been filled in open competition, what
percentage of applicants are women?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) We have had two recently, one
man and one woman.
90. Are they the only two so far?
(Ms O'Mara) At that level.
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) At that level.
91. It strikes me that if women would come forward
at that level they would be good role models.
(Ms O'Mara) That is one of the reasons to do it.
92. Formally, do you do surveys?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) It is part of the IiP process.
I do not know if we have a question which asks if morale is good
or bad. It is an invitation to punch management on the nose. There
are questions about what people think about their jobs, their
relationship with their immediate manager and whether they think
the promotion processes are fair. So we have done this. We did
it as part of the IiP process. We have to get re-accredited and
we have set a date for the spring of next year to do that. We
have called it a management survey rather than a simple inquiry
into morale, but it gives you the same kind of answer.
93. I will pick up on something else. You mentioned
an awful lot of younger, mostly men, coming through and taking
a more senior position and overtaking some of the staff who are
50 plus. What is your analysis of that? Do you think it is very
important that the Treasury do not discriminate against age as
well?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) Some of this has come about,
I think, because we have become less hierarchical. Seniority is
almost a dead concept. We are looking for who is going to do the
best job. It is partly also a change in the kind of skills that
we want. Your original question, which I am not sure I have entirely
answered, was, how do we manage to get the number down? A lot
of it was a managed programme of exits and some early retirements.
A lot of people were capable of doing a good job in another department
but did not meet our particular needs or did not show the particular
skills as a policy analyst that we need in the Treasury. Many
of those we have managed to place successfully in other departments.
There must be several tens of those that we have successfully
moved, plus some early retirements.
Mr Plaskitt
94. Can we turn, for a few minutes, to your
crumbling building? I understand you have concluded a deal with
Exchequer Partnerships on 5th May?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) You have seen the PQ, have you?
95. Yes, we have thank you. Of course there
was an agreement with them completed on 16th January 1997. Can
you tell us what is basically different about the agreement you
have now from the one you had in 1997?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) The agreement we have goes through
several stages. The agreement in 1996-97 was a choice of partner
and a basic scheme. There then would normally have been negotiations
ending with the detailed agreement and then the third stage, which
is the financial closure, which is the settling of the financial
arrangement. We had separated this out from the agreement for
the design and facilities management. The agreement of January
1997 was put to incoming ministers and they asked a number of
questions about it. They instinctively did not like the idea of
what was a private sector group taking space which was very valuable
to the Government right at the heart of the Whitehall/Westminster
area. They said, "Is that absolutely necessary?" I think
they thought that maybe certain elements of it were a bit gold
plated. In particular, a lot of money was being spent removing
a bomb slab that goes underneath it which is three feet thick.
They asked if we really needed to do that. Also, the idea of the
particular decant mechanism, which was going to be to go to Vauxhall.
So they initially called a halt to this. Then there was a realisation
that actually we cannot do nothing, for the reasons you were able
to see. So we were asked to go back to Exchequer Partnerships
and seek to negotiate certain modifications. We have changed the
decant arrangement. Some of the staff will go to our second building,
Allington Towers, and the rest of us bunch up in the Parliament
Street end and that frees the St James' end. When the St James'
end is refurbished we will move in and then there will only then
be one real decant, not going out somewhere and coming back, and
that was thought preferable. We have also managed to negotiate
an arrangement in which the other part of the building has to
be offered to other public sector clients before it can be offered
to private sector clients. We have modified the extent of the
intervention so that we are leaving the bomb slab in place, except
in places where we need to break through it. We have managed to
do all that and it has come in somewhat cheaper than the original
scheme.
96. Can you tell us how much cheaper?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) It is of the order of maybe
£10 million or so, but I cannot give precise figures. I would
need to find that. It has given ministers their wish that this
should be available to the public sector, and a better decant
arrangement.
97. So you think it has sliced about £10
million off what is about a £520 million project, to put
it in proportion?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) I do not recognise the £520
million.
98. We calculate that on the basis of what we
know about the agreement signed on 5th May, in terms of the annual
rental real-term costs calculated out over the whole term of the
arrangement.
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) If you multiply £14 million
by 35, you get £500 million.
(Ms O'Mara) It is not just the building.
99. It is the implied real-term costs as we
understand that. Have we got it right?
(Sir Andrew Turnbull) It is probably correct, the
question is whether that is really the best way of thinking.
| 
