Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-119)
SIR GUS
O'DONNELL KCB
11 OCTOBER 2005
Q100 Kelvin Hopkins: What I really
want to say is that the model of the Civil Service seems to have
changed, although you seem to have gone back somewhat on what
your predecessor Sir Andrew said. I suggested to him that the
senior Civil Service had now become an adjunct to Downing Street
and instead of Sir Andrew and yourself being the Civil Service's
representatives at Downing Street you were now Downing Street's
representatives in the Civil Service. You were driving the policy
agenda because you were personally committed to that policy agenda
rather than standing back with the independent Sir Humphrey view
and saying, from time to time; "Well Minister, I do not think
you are right on this occasion."
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I have advised
governments of both administrations and I would always argue with
all ministers "let's look at the evidence" and I would
always try and support those policies that have the most objective
and desirable outcomes.
Q101 Kelvin Hopkins: I have always
opposed what I call the "Leninisation" of the Civil
Service where policy is now made by a small group of politicians
at the centre and where a civil servant's job is simply to carry
out that policy now, not sometimes to challenge it, not to have
a debate and say, "I am sorry, Prime Minister but the five-year
plan is not working any more. Should we try something else?".
There is a feeling that anybody who challenges the drift of policy
is now unwelcome.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do not think
that is true. I think you have got a number of civil servants
around the place who are very challenging to policy. Like I say,
we are now attracting really good graduates into the Civil Service.
They are highly professional. They are the kind of people who
are interested in challenging. They are not people that say, "Yes,
Minister, you want to do this, fine." The spirit—and
I think I would say it is particularly strong in the Treasury—of
saying, "Why? Is there a better way to do it? What is your
final desired outcome? Is there a better way to achieve that?"
is very strong. The senior Civil Service—and we are trying
to develop ways of improving the senior Civil Service—is
gaining more ability to challenge and manage evidence. I think
that is stronger than ever. When I look back on those gifted amateur
days when for some of the civil servants, going a long way back,
numeracy was not top of the skills-set you had to have (and evidence-based
policy generally requires analysing numbers) I think we have come
on a long way. I think the standard is objectively much higher.
Q102 Kelvin Hopkins: We have always
attracted some of the best minds in the Civil Service and I think
that is absolutely right. We want people who are not just clever
but people with a sense of commitment to society, who feel not
just responsible to ministers but responsible to citizens as well,
to sometimes say, "I am sorry, minister, but I do not think
this is right for the people," to be brave to say those sorts
of things. I think we have always done that but I just do not
believe this stuff about evidence-based policy, quite frankly.
The evidence for privatising the railways was not strong, the
evidence for taking the railways back into public ownership is
very strong indeed, but it is not part of the spirit of the times
and therefore it is not done. Is anyone in the Treasury suggesting
that we could save billions of pounds every year if we just took
the railways back into public ownership? That is evidence-based.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: There will
be disputes about the evidence base for those contentions.
Q103 Kelvin Hopkins: I refer you
to Tom Windsor who was the Railway Regulator who said in this
very room things along those lines.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am afraid
there are plenty of people who would argue the opposite.
Kelvin Hopkins: Indeed.
Chairman: We are not quite the Committee
to pronounce upon this but the general point is a good one. We
all have a case for evidence which leads to our own policy conclusions
of course.
Q104 Kelvin Hopkins: Could I just
ask one more question. I asked this of Sir Andrew and I did not
get a very clear answer, but do you regard yourself as the civil
servants' representative in Downing Street or the Prime Minister's
representative in the Civil Service?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I regard myself
as the Head of the Civil Service and the Secretary to the Cabinet.
Those are the two things I regard myself as.
Q105 Chairman: Should those two jobs
be split, by the way?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I am strongly
in favour of keeping them together, partly for the reason that
I tried to explain at the beginning, that I think having the Head
of Civil Service role forces me out there to see the frontline,
forces me to get out from that small policy nexus to see how these
things are being implemented and I can bring that back in when
we are having discussions at the highest level about policy issues,
so I think it is very good.
Q106 Mr Burrowes: Would you see part
of your remit to restore the lost influence of the Cabinet Secretary?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: You are assuming
there that the influence was lost. I certainly come at the job
with a certain set of experiences, one of which is strong policy
advice, but I think my predecessors had that as well. I certainly
want to have strong links to the Prime Minister and to be involved
in policy discussions and so far he has been very good about letting
that happen.
Q107 Mr Burrowes: I appreciate the
aspiration for strong policy advice but there is also the thrust
for improved delivery and does not the mechanism for that, the
capability review, (and I come with a jaundiced view with my council
undergoing a CPA inspection) come with the prospect of increased
targets, regulations and micro-management from others from afar,
from ministers, rather than that accountability that you want
to engender?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Like I say,
I think overall most people would say that the CPA has improved
the performance of local authorities and I think now they welcome
it in general.
Q108 Mr Burrowes: The thing is with
the focus on delivery and then looking at delivery skills, although
a more difficult target to achieve in terms of delivery, is that
perhaps a more comfortable one and also comfortable if it is similar
to the Government agenda, rather than tackling what people recognise
is a real problem which is robust, impartial policy advice, and
seeking to make sure that is improved? Just to allow you to respond
to it, would you perhaps agree or have some sympathy with the
description of Donald Savoie used by Baroness Prashar that civil
servants have become wary of saying "No, minister" or
even "Be careful, minister" and that honest officials
have found themselves being superseded by courtiers?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Baroness Prashar
and I work very closely together. Coming to your point about policy
and delivery, it seems to me that you have got to manage both.
You cannot have somebody who spends their time just thinking about
delivery. For me it is important to have that policy advice part
because good policies are policies that are deliverable, and it
would be wrong also to separate it out the other way and to say,
"You are just going to be a policy adviser and you are going
to have nothing to do with delivery." Then how would you
get that constructive feedback when delivery does not work?
Q109 Mr Burrowes: Sir Michael Bichard
says that there needs to be a more politically aware, sensitive
and empathetic, astute but not aligned Civil Service, in other
words that is a reference to ever more political sensitivity.
Is that not very easily extrapolated into civil servants should
be more responsible to their views and needs, and less feeling
able to be robust and impartial in their advice and follow it
through?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is the one
part of Michael Bichard's lecture—and there was a lot in
there I agreed with—where I was not quite sure what he was
on about when he talked about political sensitivity and all the
rest of it. Like you, I was slightly nervous, what did this mean,
that you were going to not tell ministers what they did not want
to hear?
Q110 Mr Burrowes: It is not just
Michael Bichard. Sir Hayden Phillips, permanent secretary of two
departments, also uses the same codicil as we know traditionally
about integrity, impartiality and honesty, but then goes on to
say, however, that needs to be allied to flexibility, political
sensitivity, again, and commitment. That is another person with
a lot of experience talking about the same political sensitivity.
Is that people being sensitive to the Government's present needs?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, political
sensitivity in the sense of you have to understand the politics
of something, so when it comes to putting forward different policy
prescriptions you need to be clear whether that fits in politically
with that current Government's agenda or whether it is moving
in a completely different direction. That sort of awareness is
very important because that can help you understand the sorts
of questions that ministers are going to know so you do need (a
small "p") political awareness. I would think that is
something you get imbued in as a senior civil servant just in
the day-to-day nature of your job. That is why I was slightly
surprised by Michael Bichard saying he thought it was lacking.
I think it comes with the territory. The question is making sure
you do not let that political sensitivity stop you from giving
objective, impartial advice, which I think is the point you are
getting at.
Q111 Mr Burrowes: I just wonder whether
within the whole mechanism of government there needs to be a capability
review to be challenged.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Governments
have the ultimate challenge, do they not, every four or five years,
so I want to take it department by department, which I think is
easier than doing the whole of government.
Q112 Chairman: We are almost done.
Just picking up one of those points, would it matter if a lot
more political appointees came into the Civil Service?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: There are a
very small number at the minute. I think it is something like
80, relative to the senior Civil Service, they are swamped. Would
it matter? I guess it would matter how many. My experience of
working and living in America twice was that the change of administration
there when all of the equivalent of our top Civil Service went
and a whole new lot came in is that a) there are huge transition
costs and b) you would not attract people into the Civil Service
in the US Treasury, for example, because there is a real glass
ceiling and the glass ceiling is a very long way down. So I think
there are problems about having a lot of people change over.
Q113 Chairman: But if ministers,
as was once proposed (and it used to be conventional to argue
this) had little political cabinets around them, that would
not be the end of the world for the Civil Service, would it?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: No and if you
go to, say, Canberra you will observe ministers physically in
a different place with their little cabinets and then the
Civil Service; it is a different model. It seems to work for them.
Personally I would not advocate it for the UK. I think the system
we have works extremely well as it is.
Q114 Chairman: But our system could
digest a development of that kind?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is a good
question. I do not know is the honest answer. It would change
the nature of our system quite a lot. If you felt that all the
power was in the cabinets then I think it would make the job of
being a senior civil servant rather less attractive.
Chairman: Thank you for that. I think
Gordon has just one final question.
Q115 Mr Prentice: Just going back
to this policy point. I have got a briefing paper from the Adam
Smith Institute in front of me. It is a commentary on the commissioning
of a patient-led NHS. It says it is de-coding the messages for
a wider audience. They go on to talk about when the policy is
up and running we can expect amalgamations of hospitals, mergers,
takeovers, winners and losers. It goes on to say: "Will ministers
face down inevitable backbench concerns over hospital closures?"
I thought this was just the Adam Smith Institute and fanciful
stuff, but you will have read the front page of The Guardian,
as I did today, and the story there about accident and emergency
services at risk from NHS changes and the Audit Commission, no
less, is saying that the level of risk inherent in the current
policy is too great. The Department of Health is quoted as saying
that it is going to press on regardless. So how do you resolve
a conflict like this? The Audit Commission on the one hand urging
caution because accident and emergency departments will close
and the Department of Health intent on reconfiguring, restructuring
the Health Service because it is doing the bidding of its political
masters. How do you resolve that?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is very
much a policy issue for ministers. They will need to consider
what risks they are taking. You raise a very important point about
when you do these policies you need to think about risk assessments
as well, as to what might go right, what might go wrong. On accident
and emergency that has been a transformation. If you look at the
waiting times in A&E they have improved quite dramatically
so I think the underlying policy certainly seems to have delivered
the desired target.
Q116 Mr Prentice: Finally, what would
be your role here? Would you look into this—and we are talking
about the Audit Commission, the Department of Health—and
get the evidence for this? Would you take it to the Prime Minister
and say there are problems with extending payment by results,
because that is what we are talking about, into accident and emergency
departments?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: This is a subject
that I know is under active consideration between the Department
of Health and Number 10. They are talking a lot about the health
reform process, payment by results. The Prime Minister is very
anxious to push reform rapidly to get better results. This is
currently the subject of quite intensive discussion.
Q117 Mr Prentice: Has he read the
Adam Smith Institute paper?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I really do
not know.
Q118 Mr Burrowes: You obviously try
and maintain and endorse the historic values of the Civil Service
and want to carry those forward. Would you support those being
enshrined in law?
Sir Gus O'Donnell: Historic values
of the Civil Service? I can tell you a good story about historic
values.
Q119 Mr Burrowes: If you could answer
the question as well.
Sir Gus O'Donnell: I will answer
your question but there are sometimes some very strange things
said about the wonderful historic values of the Civil Service.
If I said to you that the permanent secretary of the Treasury
had written on Treasury notepaper a note to an opponent of the
Chancellor in the House of Lords saying "Could you kindly
block the Budget?" you would be pretty appalled, I would
hope. That actually happened in 1908 so when people talk about
golden eras just remember that things are a bit different. In
answer to your question, I assume you mean a Civil Service Act?
| 
