|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 884-v House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday 16 May 2006 SIR GUS O'DONNELL KCB Evidence heard in Public Questions 249 - 332
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Public Administration Committee on Tuesday 16 May 2006 Members present Dr Tony Wright, in the Chair Mr David Burrowes Paul Flynn David Heyes Kelvin Hopkins Julie Morgan Mr Gordon Prentice Paul Rowen Grant Shapps Jenny Willott ________________ Witness: Sir Gus O'Donnell, Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Home Civil Service, gave evidence. Q249 Chairman: It is a great pleasure to welcome the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, I think for your second appearance before us during your tenure. There are at least three inquiries we are on that bear on you in some way. One is on Propriety and Honours, one is on Ethics and Standards and one is on Ministers and Civil Servants. That is just a warning that we may ask you, as always happens with a Cabinet Secretary, almost anything. Would you like to say anything by way of introduction? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes, if I could, Chairman. First of all, thank you very much. I am delighted you are doing those studies and looking forward to seeing the reports. In some cases, I think they are very timely. I have given you a background on the honours system. I would just update you because since the last time we spoke I have now chaired two rounds of the honours system under the new procedures, with chairs who are taken from different areas of British society, so Lord McLaurin doing sport, specialists, with the proportion of civil servants always being in the minority on those committees. I think they are starting to deliver the transparency and accountability that you called for in your report. I think that system is working well. One of your recommendations was about diversity. Since then we have had a campaign trying to increase the proportion of female honours nominations. I think the nominations procedure from the public is going well, something I feel quite strongly about, since under the previous administration it was something I worked on with the previous Prime Minister. I am glad we are starting to see those nominations go through. It is worth remembering, I think, that in the last honours system 85 per cent of those who received awards were MBE or OBE. These are the kinds of awards that would have featured in local and regional news coverage and have brought enormous satisfaction to the unsung heroes that we sometimes forget about, and there seems to be a lot of attention on the very small percentage at the top. In terms of diversity, in the last set there was about 37 per cent women out of a population 51 per cent female, which is why we have the campaign; in terms of ethnic minorities, the proportion given awards was around seven per cent, and the proportion of the population is five per cent. However, that is not representative across all levels, so the issue that we are discussing with CRE[1] is the question of how to increase the proportion of our nominations at the senior level. A key development on honours was the Prime Minister's statement in March, which I have given you details about. You mentioned that you might be interested in other issues, so perhaps I could just update you briefly on those. The Civil Service Code consultation closed at the end of April. We received over 2,000 responses to that consultation exercise. Just to give you a flavour of that in terms of whether that is successful, when we published the draft Civil Service Bill we had 50 responses. A lot of those 2,000 are from civil servants across a whole range of grades. We would still be interested, although the consultation has closed, in the views of the Committee. We have not yet finalised our response taking account of the consultations, but I know you are working on this and if there is anything you would like to say, there is still time for us to take that into account. Once we finalise the code, one of the really big issues for us is making sure it is actually read and disseminated. As I said, the last code was possibly not as user-friendly as it might have been - I think the first sentence runs to 100 words, including the footnote which it inevitably has. The new one is an attempt to do something that people will read. I hope that will be useful to the Commission. One of the things we have said, again taking up one of your recommendations, is that Civil Service Commissioners will now be able to respond to breaches of the code; people can go to them. That is, I think, very important. What has been clear from the consultation exercise is that not enough civil servants are aware of the role of Civil Service Commissioners, so we actually need an awareness campaign. This is not something we can just announce; this is something we really need a roll-out programme for. On memoirs, I know you have had some rather entertaining hearings on this, and we are looking forward to your report. What I have done from my side is, the Civil Service Management Code is being amended to make the existing rules clearer and more explicit in contracts; staff in certain posts will be required to sign a declaration of confidentiality and to assign copyright of the information to the Crown. Today I am very pleased to actually sign that declaration myself. So the pension has gone, in that sense! Independent advisers: I know the Committee is interested in the appointment of Sir John Bourn as the first independent adviser on ministers' interests. That, I think, is a very important development, a development that is now live with the reshuffle. What that meant was a number of new ministers in post. I have been to see my new ministers; I have sent round to my permanent secretary colleagues a model letter for them to discuss with their new ministers. When the new ministers fill in their information on the financial interests of themselves and their spouse or partner and potential conflicts of interest, that information will all go to Sir John Bourn, who will look at it and consider the action that has been agreed between the minister and the permanent secretary as to what should be done, if any action is required. If there are any potential conflicts of interest, for example, it may be that ministers will decide to recuse themselves from a particular subject. Sir John Bourn will see all of that and will thus have that basis of understanding if in future he is called upon to do any investigations. The terms of reference for Sir John have today been placed in the Library of the House. Parliamentary Ombudsman: I notice you have recently had a meeting with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I met her recently and we talked about how we could improve relations between the Civil Service and the Ombudsman. One idea that came out of our conversations was to have a permanent secretary champion who could help departments when they are liaising with the Ombudsman when there is a new report, someone who actually has quite a lot of experience in dealing with the department that is being investigated by the Ombudsman. Again, I can announce today that Paul Gray from HM Revenue & Customs will be doing that; he will be the permanent secretary champion to liaise on cross-cutting issues, but will also be there as a source of advice for other permanent secretaries in their dealings with the Ombudsman. I think that is very important. Capability Reviews: I announced these in front of you before. Basically, they are now under way in six departments: Constitutional Affairs, Home Office, DWP, DfES, DTI and the new Department for Communities and Local Government. The intention is that they will be published before the summer recess, so in July, I would expect. Good progress. Finally, on the Cabinet Office and wider Civil Service, as you will have seen in the reshuffle, the Cabinet Office acquired some new ministers. We now have three ministers, and obviously the party chairman is associated with the Cabinet Office. I have discussed with them their responsibilities. Hilary Armstrong will be head of department and responsible at Cabinet level for social exclusion, on which she will be supported by Pat McFadden, and Ed Miliband is the Minister for the third sector, and I welcome them coming into the Cabinet Office. What I have been trying to do with the Cabinet Office is focus it on the real priorities, Prime Minister and Cabinet, in particular supporting the Prime Minister, supporting the Cabinet, dealing with cross-cutting Civil Service issues and specific areas like this, and trying to make it smaller, more strategic and get away from areas where I think there is a strategic need for them to be in the Cabinet Office. The most obvious one, I think, was the Government Car Service, which has been transferred to the Department for Transport. That process is reducing numbers in the Cabinet Office quite significantly. Finally, on modernisation of the Civil Service, I am trying in terms of appointments, you will have noticed, getting in the best from outside as well as bringing on talent internally. Most recently, on Monday, Gill Rider, who came in from Accenture, has started work in the Cabinet Office in terms of strategic HR, working closely with me to bring forward modernisation of our HR across the Department. You will notice that David Bell, for example, came in as a permanent secretary, with a background of head teacher, local authority, and most recently OFSTED, and has done extremely well. Finally, we are preparing a major conference on public service reform at which the Prime Minister and other ministers will be speaking on 6 June, entitled "21st century government: putting people first" and we are trying to look at some of the international aspects as well. Recently I had a meeting with my opposite numbers from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland to look at what we could learn from each other. Q250 Chairman: You would not run a conference called "Putting people last", would you? I said that there were at least three current inquiries we are doing that you relate to, and your mention of memoirs reminds me that there are at least four current inquiries that you can help us with. When you came here last time, as you have just said, you told us about the Capability Reviews that you were launching in departments. Can you tell me how the Capability Review in the Home Office is getting on? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. The first one that started was the Department of Constitutional Affairs. The Home Office one has started quite recently and it is in its early stages. It is, as far as I know, going well. Obviously, it is a department that faces a large number of challenges, and there were some machinery of government changes announced in the reshuffle, in particular moving the communities area across to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which I thought was a very sensible move. Q251 Chairman: But the recently departed Home Secretary told us it is a seriously dysfunctional department. What do you, as Cabinet Secretary, do when you are told that you have a seriously dysfunctional department? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am very fortunate in that this is precisely where Capability Reviews will help. There are some interesting questions about the structure of the Home Office. One of the obvious things to me is, if you have an area like the Home Office, you think of the responsibilities it has on crime, immigration and counter-terrorism, there are obvious overlaps in those different areas and an obvious need for those particular parts to work very closely together. It is not obvious to me that the machinery of government changes that would split them apart would necessarily improve efficiency. I readily accept that they have not worked together as well as they should have done but I think getting it to focus on, for example, the area like communities, where I think actually, if you are Home Secretary, you really need to focus on those three things I have mentioned, getting that into the Department for Communities will make a lot of sense. Q252 Chairman: We have had a political head roll. How many officials' heads have rolled because of the monumental maladministration? How many officials' heads have gone in the Home Office, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Prison Service? Sir Gus O'Donnell: You are getting to the heart there of quite an important constitutional issue. In government we have a situation where ministers are held accountable to Parliament for the policies and delivery of that Department's work. That is the system we have. You could argue that actually, we should try and have somewhat different systems in terms of accountability on the Civil Service side. Certainly, permanent secretaries are accountable in their accounting officer role to the PAC, but also to their Select Committees on a whole range of issues. It is very difficult at times to divide policy and delivery aspects here. I think this is an area that is worth looking at closely. If you can find ways to divide them very clearly, where you have very clear lines of accountability, you can make some progress. The area where I feel we have been most successful in doing that is setting up the independent Bank of England, where you have a minister, accountable to Parliament - the Chancellor - for setting an inflation target. It is very clear: if the inflation target is not met, the Chancellor is responsible, because he set up the system for it, but the specifics of how you deliver an inflation target, i.e. how you alter interest rates to deliver it, are delegated very clearly, with resources and a very clear accountability structure. If they move one per cent above the inflation rate, they write letters. There are clear accountabilities there, so technical experts can go on and deliver the assessing of appropriate interest rates to achieve that target, set by a democratically accountable minister. If you try and extrapolate that to other areas, unfortunately, what you realise is the Bank of England is a relatively straightforward example. In the jargon, there is one target and one instrument. There are not trade-offs, which are the very nature of government in other areas. When you start trying to specify other areas of government in the same way, you find that quite often you cannot distinguish between the "what" - achieving the inflation target - and the "how" - changing interest rates. Changing interest rates is a technical matter and ministers want interest rates to be changed to achieve the target. When you think about, say, the delivery of Child Benefit, ministers care; there is a policy about the "what", that Child Benefit should be delivered, but there is also an enormous amount of politics in the "how": precisely how should we deliver Child Benefit? Who should receive it? Which partner? When you get into these issues and you start trying to sort out where the accountability lies between the two, it is actually rather more complex. Q253 Chairman: That is all fascinating. All I asked you was how many officials' heads have rolled in the Home Office, the IND and the Prison Service. Sir Gus O'Donnell: There is a strong accountability regime in the Civil Service, where we have appraisals every single year. If somebody in a department is felt not to be doing well in their job, they are either given assistance to improve or they are moved to other areas, or it might well be that their manager says, "The time is now due for you to go elsewhere." That can happen. It has happened in various areas, most recently the Rural Payments Agency. Q254 Chairman: I do not want to labour this too much. We know what has happened to the Home Secretary. He happened to be the chap who was holding the Home Office parcel when the music stopped. But the Civil Service is there to enable the business of government to be run efficiently. That is what we pay them for. We are told that the Home Office is seriously dysfunctional. We are told that it has screwed up monumentally. We see that it did. I am just asking you who has carried the can for this, apart from the Minister? Sir Gus O'Donnell: As I say, if you look at what the Home Office is doing, there are a number of officials doing a wide range of jobs. I agree entirely with you that what has happened is regrettable; it is not at the standard we should expect of the Civil Service. There have been mistakes, but precisely how that should be reflected in accountability is quite a complex issue. Q255 Chairman: I am sure colleagues will come back to that. Let me move on quickly to a couple of other areas. You talked about the honours system to begin with. It must be disappointing to you that having, as it were, reformed the honours system in the way that you have described, we have a great row raging again about the honours system. Does this mean that the reformed system has fallen at the first hurdle? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am not sure what you mean by a great row about the honours system. What aspect of it do you mean? I think people are confusing honours and peerages here. Q256 Chairman: The system does confuse honours and peerages. Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, it does not. As far as I am concerned, I have them in two separate areas. The honours system, as I have talked about, with an independent chair and all the rest of it, what the Prime Minister has done is he has removed himself from the possibility of adding names. In the past the system was that Prime Ministers going back for decades could add names to the system. They would go to a scrutiny committee. That scrutiny committee has been strengthened. It has now been replaced by the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), who I have the highest regard for. If the Prime Minister added any names, those names went to them and they independently vetted those names. What he has decided to do now is not to avail himself of that. The constitutional position is that the Prime Minister must advise the Queen, but he will not be adding any names. Q257 Chairman: Do you welcome the fact that the Appointments Commission has started taking a more robust attitude towards some of the names forwarded to it from party leaders? Sir Gus O'Donnell: We are now into the situation where there are two aspects. Now we are into the party-political part. There is the honours system, and then there is the question of party nominations. Q258 Chairman: I have to tell you, there are people who want to be in the House of Lords not because they desperately desire to be working peers but because they want to be lords and baronesses. Sir Gus O'Donnell: Absolutely, and when it comes to nominations for the House of Lords, there are various ways, as you know, in which people can be nominated. HOLAC itself can make nominations now, which is a very good thing. I agree with you: what is important about the House of Lords is that the right people go there who can make a contribution to the House of Lords. That is why it is different from the honours, which recognise honours in society. What you are doing when you are nominating someone to the Lords is putting them into one of the two Houses, so in that sense it is a different skill set they are looking at. It is completely appropriate, I think, that there is transparency in that process. Because it is the party-political element, it is not a process the Cabinet Secretary is much involved in. These are nominations from the heads of all the different parties, and they are referred to HOLAC. Where the Cabinet Office can come in is if HOLAC ask us to help them in terms of clearance procedures; that is what we do, but the nominations are party-political nominations. Q259 Chairman: But the fact that the Appointments Commission is taking a more robust view of some of these names you think is a good thing? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think it is a very good thing that the best possible scrutiny is applied to people who are going to hold such an important office for life in the Lords. I think it is an extremely good thing and I am delighted that the system was strengthened by this Government in 2001. Q260 Chairman: Let me just ask you one more question, which is about the changes that you have made to the Ministerial Code, or which the Prime Minister agreed. For years the Prime Minister, following previous Prime Ministers, said that there is absolutely no need for anyone to undertake investigations externally on a standing basis around the Ministerial Code, and now the Prime Minister has appointed such a person, it seems, in the form of Sir John Bourn. Can you explain why the conversion? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I certainly strongly advised him that I thought this was the right thing to do, in that I think what we really need is someone who is involved right from the start of the process. So when ministers fill in their replies to the letters their permanent secretaries will give them, laying out their financial interests and any potential conflicts, there is one person who has all that information and has time to look at that, assess it carefully, and then have a relationship which is not the same as the relationship the Cabinet Secretary has with Cabinet members. My relationship with Cabinet members is that I see them every week in Cabinet but I also have discussions with a number of them on policy issues, if there is a particularly difficult policy area. I like the idea that we have now separated that, and if there is a financial interest question, for example, Sir John Bourn can then take the lead in that. Q261 Chairman: So you were the person who persuaded the Prime Minister? Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Prime Minister and I discussed it, I gave my advice, he made a decision. Q262 Chairman: Just so we are clear, there is some confusion about exactly what Sir John Bourn is going to do. We know about the advising on financial interest bit, but is he going to be the person that is there to undertake investigations, when asked, on any aspect of the Ministerial Code? Sir Gus O'Donnell: This is why the terms of reference, which I can forward to the Committee, have been put into the House today. Basically, I think section 5 of the Ministerial Code would be the key part that he looks at, but it will ultimately be for the Prime Minister to decide on investigations. Q263 Chairman: So the answer is no, he will not be able to investigate right across the board. Whenever an allegation is made about a minister in relation to the Ministerial Code, Sir John Bourn will not be able to investigate apart from... Sir Gus O'Donnell: Sir John Bourn will look at all of those covered by his terms of reference, which is essentially section 5 of the code. Q264 Chairman: When it was announced at the Prime Minister's press conference, the impression was given that he would be a wide-ranging investigator under the code. Sir Gus O'Donnell: He will be a wide-ranging investigator, yes, but not all issues covered by the Ministerial Code will be appropriate for him to investigate, I think. Q265 Chairman: Finally, do you think it is odd that if Charles Clarke had been said not to have declared his Air Miles under the Ministerial Code, we would have people jumping up and down, demanding inquiries because the code has been breached, yet we have this monumental maladministration in the Home Office and we have no mechanism to have a proper, forensic inquiry into what happened? Does it not seem very peculiar? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Who is jumping up and down? I think your reference is to what the media are making of these different things. That is, I am afraid, for them to comment on. What I will say is I think you are absolutely right, in that from my point of view, what is important is making sure that government works efficiently and well, and with something like the Home Office, where there have clearly been problems, it is important that we learn the lessons of that episode and implement them. Q266 Chairman: Is there a proper inquiry in place then? Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Capability Review will be looking at the capability of the Home Office. Q267 Chairman: No, but is there a proper inquiry looking at what happened in this case that resulted in foreign prisoners being released rather than deported? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Certainly we will be looking forensically at what happened, what the lessons are to learn from that case. There is a detailed amount of work. At the moment, I think the Home Office, quite rightly, is concentrating on ensuring that those problems are cleared up. That, to me, is the most important thing and that is what they are spending their time on. Q268 Chairman: There will be an inquiry, and will it be made available to the rest of us? Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Home Office will investigate the issue. As I say, it will be for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to decide on precisely what form that takes. Certainly, we will look internally to see what can be done to improve matters. Q269 Chairman: What I am saying to you is we have inquiries into relatively trivial things, yet we seem not to have inquiries into major things, and that seems to be very peculiar. Sir Gus O'Donnell: There are whole areas of government where lots of business is going on and sometimes we do not get it right. What I want to establish in the Civil Service is that we are a learning organisation and that we have the capacity internally to sort out what is working and what is not, and to improve the way we do our business. Chairman: Let me ask colleagues to take all these issues further. Q270 Grant Shapps: Do you believe that it is public-spirited to give money to political parties? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Fortunately, Hayden Phillips is having an inquiry into party funding and he will be able to look at all of those things. Q271 Grant Shapps: It is not a trick question; I am just interested to find out whether you think that it is for the public good that individuals come forward and donate money or lend money to political parties. In society is this something to be praised and honoured or is it something to be, frankly, looked at in a sceptical manner, of "What are they after"? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do not have a view about that, as Cabinet Secretary. Q272 Grant Shapps: It seems to me what we have ended up with is a situation where, if you give money nowadays, the only option that a government might have in order to thank that person is to stick them in a legislative body, the House of Lords. On reflection, might it have been a mistake to prevent people who had donated money from receiving honours? Sir Gus O'Donnell: People who had donated money were not prevented from receiving honours. The honours system assesses people on their merits. The principle is that you should not be ruled out from receiving an honour because you have made a donation to a political party. Q273 Grant Shapps: That comes back to my earlier question. Unless you believe that it is somehow public-spirited, for the public good, that people come forward and give cash to political parties, or lend it in recent cases, then there would not be a reason to give them an honour. Is that right? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Honours are not given because of donations. Q274 Grant Shapps: They used to be, did they not? Sir Gus O'Donnell: How far back can you go? Chairman: We are in the Lloyd George Room. Sir Gus O'Donnell: In this room, I guess you should go back a long way, and that is precisely why the 1925 legislation was implemented and all the rest of it, but my point is, the principle about honours is when the committees are assessing these things, they assess whether an individual deserves one in terms of their overall contribution to society. The fact that they have given a donation is something that the committees will know about now, but that is simply because the independent chairmen have decided they would like to know rather than not know. Q275 Grant Shapps: You are aware that the 1925 Act has only been used once, of course, to successfully prosecute. Would you say there have never been honours bestowed since that time - I think that was in 1933 - for political donations? What is your perception of the system that you are trying to clean up? Sir Gus O'Donnell: My perception of the system is that there were perceptions that it was not very... Q276 Grant Shapps: So it was not true; it was just a perception? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I do not know. I would be pre-judging cases that were not ever brought. What I am saying is I am responsible for the machinery backing up the honours system now, and I think what we have now is a good system. Q277 Grant Shapps: Is it not the case that actually what has happened here is the Prime Minister removed the ability to give an honour, which actually, in practical terms, means nothing - an OBE, an MBE, which has no value other than the letters after your name - and instead narrows his options down into only being able to give people that he wanted to benefit for having made donations or lent money membership of the House of Lords, which does have real power, because it helps to make the laws of this country, and in fact he has just narrowed himself down into a dead end? Sir Gus O'Donnell: First of all, I think you dismiss the honours system too quickly, in the sense that if you have been to one of these events at the Palace, as I say, this latest one, 85 per cent of them MBEs and OBEs, for those people this is not a trivial matter. This is a huge recognition. Q278 Grant Shapps: You are confusing two points. I am not saying it is trivial at all. I think it is a huge privilege to be given an OBE. What I am saying is there is no legislative ability attached to receiving an OBE. You cannot then make laws for the country. What the Prime Minister has done - this is what I am putting to you and I would be interested in your comments - is to ensure that the only place that he could reward people who had given money to political parties was via the House of Lords, a place where laws are made for this country. In fact, that is far worse than the earlier system, which simply gave people gongs. Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Prime Minister, and, I think, all leaders of political parties, are attempting to put people into the Lords who they think will make a strong contribution to the governance of this country. That is the principle they take, and they are responsible for their nominations. Their nominations now go to HOLAC, who do a much stronger scrutiny than there has been before, and that is the way the process works. Q279 Grant Shapps: In which case, I am still not clear on the original point. It is not public-spirited, in your mind, to give money to political parties? That should never be rewarded in any way, shape or form by public administration, effectively, by the Government? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I said I did not have a view about whether it is public-spirited or not. I think there is a genuine issue about how you fund political parties in this country. To what extent do you want to have state funding? To what extent do you want to allow donations from businesses, unions, individuals, whatever? That is what Hayden Phillips is looking into. When it comes to honours, basically, my experience of the independent chairs has been that they have assessed people on their merits and actually, whether they have given a donation or not has been a fairly third-order issue; it is just something they want to be aware of. It is not something they see as critical in the decision whether to give one or not. Q280 Mr Burrowes: Why have you sidelined the Committee on Standards in Public Life in relation to the issues of honours and loans for peerages? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Basically, on the party funding issue? Q281 Mr Burrowes: Yes, for example, there it would be appropriate to involve the Committee. Sir Gus O'Donnell: You are searching for consensus, getting the parties together to say, "Do we all think now is the time when there should be a different method of funding political parties?" That, to be honest, requires the skills of someone who can negotiate successfully, quietly, with the party leaders and come together and form a consensus that will be agreed in the Houses of Parliament. That is something that is probably better done by an individual than a committee, to be perfectly honest. I think the chances of us coming to a successful conclusion are higher with Hayden Phillips doing it than if we had given it to the Committee. That is nothing against the Committee; it is just the nature of the task that has been handed to them. Q282 Mr Burrowes: Do you still think the Committee on Standards in Public Life is fit for purpose as an ethical workshop? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am looking forward to your views on that. You are doing the report on this. Q283 Mr Burrowes: What is your view? Sir Gus O'Donnell: My view is that it has done some good work; it is doing some interesting work on governance of the electoral body. I have an open mind on that issue. Q284 Mr Burrowes: You reserve judgment on that? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Yes. Q285 Mr Burrowes: Would that mean that it has a role to play in terms of the loans for peerages issue? Is that not a role for an ethical workshop? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Curiously enough, I think what we are doing now is a very appropriate response to that, which is that your Committee should be investigating this issue. Q286 Mr Burrowes: Not the Committee on Standards in Public Life, an issue the public are all concerned about? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Mr Shapps was very clear about the nature of questions about the legislature. What we are talking about here on the Lords thing is what is appropriate for people in the House of Lords, and I think for that, actually, a parliamentary committee seems to me essentially a rather more appropriate body to deal with that. Q287 Mr Burrowes: Is that why when Sir Alistair Graham told us on 27 April that he offered to carry out an inquiry into the loans for peerages to the Cabinet Office, it was not taken up? Was the reason that it is not an appropriate body to do that? Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Chairman informed me that you are doing just such a thing; you are inquiring into this subject. Q288 Mr Burrowes: Why was his offer to take up the issue not followed up? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Why would you have a number of different bodies doing the same thing? Q289 Mr Burrowes: Was that the reason why, when he offered, you said, "Well, the Public Administration Committee is doing it"? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Exactly, yes. Q290 Mr Burrowes: When Sir Alistair says that he has been disappointed that this Government and this Prime Minister have not made standards a high priority, do you agree with him? Sir Gus O'Donnell: If you look at the record, we now have a much more independent system of honours, which I have described. We have a strengthened House of Lords Appointments Commission. If you look at almost any area of government in terms of openness and transparency, if you look at the passage of the Freedom of Information Act and what has been happening since then, I think it is fairly clear that, if you compare the situation now with a number of years ago, the degree of scrutiny, accountability and transparency is much greater than it was. Q291 Mr Burrowes: Why is public trust lower? Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is an interesting question. If you look at public trust and try to be objective about it, you will look at the evidence that we have, and the evidence we have from MORI, who did a question every single year on trust in different professional groups, their 2005 report made it absolutely clear. In most professional groups the level of trust has stayed much the same. There was one group where they reported in the last 20 years that the degree of trust had doubled; that group was the Civil Service, I am proud to say. There are some groups, alas, where levels of public trust are low and have remained low. I made a point of not looking up what it is for politicians before this Committee, but for journalists, I have to say you are talking about 18-20 per cent levels, and they have not changed. Q292 Mr Burrowes: Finally, in terms of Sir John Bourn's remit, which is in the House today, does that plug the significant gap identified by Sir Alistair Graham in relation to dealing with non-financial breaches of the code, such as those relating to John Prescott? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think the Prime Minister has made that clear, that he believed that was a private matter and would not have asked Sir John Bourn to investigate that. Q293 Mr Burrowes: But is there still a significant gap with non-financial interests? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think what Sir John Bourn's particular terms of reference cover is a perfectly reasonable set that will cover most eventualities. There will be other private matters, and I think there is an issue about what should happen in those cases. The Prime Minister made it clear that he believes that is a private matter. Q294 Chairman: I think what you just said about Parliament, this Committee and so on, the importance of it, presumably when Scotland Yard come and ask us to discontinue our inquiry, you think we should just press on? Sir Gus O'Donnell: There are two
issues here really. Did Scotland Yard
ask you to discontinue? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think there is a real issue about when an investigation is ongoing, ensuring that nobody says anything that might have an impact on potential criminal cases. We all have to be careful about sub judice and all of that, but I do not think that should be regarded as you stopping an investigation. I think you should look at these issues. It may be there is a timing question. I do not know how long the police are going to carry on for, but when they have come to a conclusion, I would have thought it is entirely appropriate for this Committee to be looking at that. Q295 Mr Prentice: We are covering a lot of ground here and I just want to focus on one or two things. You circulated to the Committee in the last 24 hours, I think, a note on the reform of the honours system, and there is a paragraph there, paragraph 15, on policy development, and you told us how the Prime Minister has changed his responsibilities. But according to this note, he says he will give a remit to the independent committees, the ones that you have told us about, as to the general direction of policy, including priority areas for recognition. This is in the honours system. Can you just give us some examples - let us take the Health Committee and the Education Committee - of what the Prime Minister believes should be the priority areas of recognition when it comes to the awarding of honours? Sir Gus O'Donnell: This is important, I think, from a government point of view, so I welcome the question. The independent chairmen will make their own decisions. The question that I think is important to them is to say "Where are those areas that the Government feels are particularly important?" If you take the area of the Health Service, for example, I think it would be trying to get away from the fact of the usual suspects, as it were, and thinking about real, front-line workers, people that are making a real difference to delivery of health services. The same with head teachers: strategic priority for those who might otherwise be missed if you just looked at the very tops of organisations, but to look at those people who are making a real, significant difference to delivery on the ground. Q296 Mr Prentice: Would the Prime Minister say that people involved in animal testing, Colin Blakemore's office world, should receive priority treatment for recognition because that is advancing a policy objective of the Government? Sir Gus O'Donnell: You have seen the recent announcement by the Prime Minister that he will be signing that petition in favour of testing. The Prime Minister has a very strong view about that. In terms of whether he would be that specific, I do not know. Q297 Mr Prentice: In education, let us be specific. The city academy programme: we know that the police are investigating this because they told us. Has the Prime Minister offered any indications to the Education Honours Committee that they should give priority to people who sponsor city academies? Sir Gus O'Donnell: The answer to your question is I am not sure what specific information was passed to them in the past, before my tenure, but he certainly would not rule out saying the Government's priorities, "What I think is particularly worthwhile are those areas where we are being innovative in terms of the delivery of education, including academies". What he would be absolutely clear about is that, in terms of recognition, it should be in terms of what they have achieved, not in return for... Q298 Mr Prentice: Can we just stick with city academies? I am going to quote from a piece in The Observer of 16 April. I have already raised it with Sir Alistair Graham. The headline in this Observer piece is "Number 10 admits the link between school donors and peerages", and it goes on to say that Blair wants greater political support in the House of Lords for his controversial education policy. There is an unnamed Downing Street source that says quite explicitly, "What we wanted was people with expertise in academies as working peers, taking the Labour whip, who could actively contribute with a massive amount of knowledge to the debate on education in the House of Lords". Do you agree with that, that sponsors of city academies should be elevated to the Lords in order to advance the Government's policy objective, which is the creation of 200 city academies? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I stress, now we are on to the Lords again and peerages, these are party-political decisions. The Cabinet Secretary has very little role in these. The Prime Minister has to make decisions about who he thinks will most benefit, and it is the same for all political parties; they are looking at a political person who will work in the House of Lords, and they may be looking for one with particular skills in a particular area, in this case education. That seems to me a perfectly valid... Q299 Mr Prentice: I am putting to you the same question that I put to Sir Alistair Graham, who chairs the Committee on Standards in Public Life. When I suggested to him that this was corrupt, with a small "c", he agreed with me. Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is the Prime Minister's decision as to who he puts in on the party-political side. For each of the party leaders, they have to decide. It seems to me perfectly reasonable for them to decide that they want someone, if education is going to be a big issue, who is an expert and knows a lot about education, and will contribute actively to the debate. I suspect that all political parties will be looking to do exactly the same. Q300 Mr Prentice: So what you are saying is - and I do not want to labour the point about this police investigation on this very issue - is that as far as you are concerned, there is no problem about putting sponsors of city academies into the Lords to advance the policy. There is just no problem. Sir Gus O'Donnell: What I am saying is it is for the heads of all the political parties to decide who they put in, and I assume and I think what is important here is that those people that they nominate are people who can make a real contribution to the House of Lords in its legislative mode. Q301 Jenny Willott: You were speaking earlier about the remit for Sir John Bourn. Is he able to proactively investigate or only if the Prime Minister asks him to? Sir Gus O'Donnell: He is an adviser to the Prime Minister, so he will report directly to the Prime Minister, and yes, it will be the Prime Minister who will ask him to do something. If there were an issue, for example, the kind of thing where I would talk to the Prime Minister and one of the things I might suggest to the Prime Minister about something is if there are some serious allegations in the financial area. I would say, "Well, Prime Minister, I suggest you get Sir John Bourn to look at that." Q302 Jenny Willott: One of the things that has come up before us, and the Ombudsman and the First Civil Service Commissioner have both said to us that they are concerned that they are only able to be reactive; they can only investigate something if they have had a complaint made to them about that instance, and it appears that Sir John Bourn, again, is not able to decide for himself what ought to be investigated. The frustration around that is obviously, even if there is a very clear issue that needs to be investigated, for example, as Tony said earlier, maladministration in the Home Office, unless they have a complaint, they are not able to investigate. Do you think it is time for this to be changed? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I do not. I think we are in a situation where, with something as serious as the Home Office, we are very clear, as I think Charles Clarke has made clear and the Prime Minister has made clear, there were problems, there are things that we need to sort out, we will investigate them, it will be part of the Capability Review that looks at this. So with any of these serious things, as I say, the Civil Service is an organisation that wants to learn from its mistakes and we will investigate them very seriously and sort out what should be done to improve matters. Do not forget the National Audit Office: they have the role, as indeed does the Committee of Public Accounts, to investigate whichever areas they wish, so they can go in and do an investigation and have done over many of the issues that we have been discussing around this table. Q303 Jenny Willott: That leads on to what you have just said, that it is part of the role of Select Committees to do proactive investigations. However, we have discovered that it is not always as easy for Select Committees to get some of the evidence that they wish. We tried to get Lord Birt to come and give us evidence. It took a very long time to get him to come, and when he did, he said absolutely nothing. So it is not necessarily always that easy for Select Committees to get the information that they need to be able to carry out that role. Do you agree that if there is more of a role for Select Committees in doing that, potentially maybe the rules should be changed so that committees have wider powers to get papers or call witnesses and so on? Do you think if there is going to be more of a role for Select Committees doing that, there is a quid pro quo in terms of what they can do? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I can only really answer on behalf of the Civil Service, where I always encourage civil servants to appear before Select Committees, and I always encourage them to be as open and as full in their answers as possible. From that side, I can do it. In terms of other matters, that will be a decision for the Prime Minister. Q304 Jenny Willott: Have you ever been overruled by the Prime Minister on who should be going to Select Committees? Sir Gus O'Donnell: With regard to civil servants, no. Q305 Jenny Willott: With regard to any other recommendations that you might have made? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think I will maintain confidentiality between Cabinet Secretary and Prime Minister on that one. Q306 Kelvin Hopkins: Is not the overall problem we have in government increasingly that ethics of government and politics and money do not mix? In the past we have understood that Mammon has its role and the state has its role, but when Mammon comes in, the state goes wrong? Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is a very interesting question. If you go back to some of the issues about the Civil Service, it was actually getting away from the idea of the landed gentry doing things, the people with independent wealth, and actually setting up a Civil Service that was paid. If you look at some of the issues about corruption in civil services around the world, quite often it is the fact that the civil service is paid very badly which means that they make up their incomes through other means, quite often corrupt means. That is one of the issues that DFID, for example, have investigated in a number of countries. I agree with you that ethics are really important, and we quite often underestimate this. This is why whenever I talk about the Civil Service, I talk about the code and I talk about values. In a speech I gave recently, I was emphasizing the honesty, objectivity, integrity and impartiality, those traditional values of the Civil Service are really important, and the bedrock on which we build. We need to modernise them and add being more professional in delivery of services, but we must not ever lose that ethical foundation. Q307 Kelvin Hopkins: I agree very strongly with you, and if I were a civil servant and someone came along to me and said, "Well, we want you to join our company that is trying to lever PFI schemes out of the Department of Health. Would you like to join us?" I would be offended. I would say, "No, no, no. My values are to serve society, service the state, not to serve profit." Just take some hypothetical examples - maybe not so hypothetical. If American gambling corporations visit Downing Street and suggest that what Britain really needs is a lot of large casinos, and they might even have a cheque book at the ready for some purpose or other, and then the Government wonderfully comes up with a scheme to have lots of casinos, but Parliament winces a bit and frustrates it a bit and eventually the whole thing is wound down, and allegedly, possibly these American interests walk away and close their cheque books. If, for example, in the health area the Government decides they want to have our health bodies as commissioning organisations rather than as direct employees, so that to perhaps push health activities into the private sector, and lo and behold, American big business comes along again, possibly with a cheque book or even a hint about a place on a board at some time in the future, to be a director or have some interest later on - just hints, nothing more than that - is this not the danger? Is this not the danger that the whole of government and the Civil Service, but particularly government becomes tainted by such contacts? Sir Gus O'Donnell: If you imagine, if the Government is thinking about deregulation in the gambling industry, would it not be wrong if there were not discussions with that industry? It seems to me that is basic; you would have to have that. On health, if you are thinking about different ways of delivery, and you are absolutely right, there is a move towards more commissioning, it makes sense to think about the commissioning market and whether it can bear this. In the nature of government these contacts will take place; in fact, it would be somewhat bizarre if governments attempted to undertake policies where they are clearly talking about public-private partnerships or PFIs or whatever and there was not some discussion with the private sector in the process of thinking about the appropriate policies. In terms of the two-way interchange, in terms of getting the professional skills we need in government, if Ministers decide to go down a commissioning route, we will need to strengthen our ability to have people that understand about the role of commissioning services. So I think we will need to have interchange both ways. It is important, as you rightly say, that we maintain that gap, and that we have the Business Appointments Commission, who look at civil service applications to go into the private sector and consider whether there is anything inappropriate, and quite often suggest that there should be some gaps, some gardening leave or whatever, between the two processes, but the interaction I think is essential for both sides. Q308 Kelvin Hopkins: Is it not necessary to make sure that the Civil Service and government is not tainted, does not become in the end corrupt and bought by big business, that you have some firewalls, some very strict rules about who does what and what you can do after you leave the Civil Service or after you leave government, and that there are wedges driven between the sectors? Is it not a danger that we are starting on a process that could lead to the situation in America, where both major parties are bought by the same big companies and more than half the population does not vote because they do not think it is worth it? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I really think as we go forward, and the public sector will inevitably be working much more closely with the private sector in terms of delivery, that this is something where we have to foster these links but at the same try and ensure that we have those safeguards, those firewalls, as you mention, in place to ensure there is no impropriety. We have a Civil Service that I think is rightly regarded as one of the cleanest in that sense in the world and I think it is very important that we maintain that. Q309 Paul Flynn: I have had great difficulty trying to extricate a reply from the questions asked by the Chairman amid all this verbal interplay you admitted when you were asked by the Chairman how many Civil Service heads have rolled after the disaster in the Home Office. Is the word that you are searching for "none"? Will you say "yes" or "no"? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I have learned that you have to answer questions properly. Q310 Paul Flynn: If you are not going to answer the question, let me go on to the next one. If no heads have rolled in the Home Office, does this not reinforce the fact that the abiding principle of life in the Civil Service is the unimportance of being right and that those civil servants who go through their careers saying, "Yes, Minister," "No, Minister," "Would you like me to lick your boots, Minister?" are the ones whose careers prosper, and those civil servants who challenge their Ministers, are difficult, challenge policy, are the ones whose careers wither? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think that is fundamentally wrong. If Ministers wanted yes-men around them, then there are some bizarre people in the Civil Service because that is not what they have. It is not the way I have lived my life in the Civil Service. I have to say, I slightly resent the fact that you imply my progress has been because I have never challenged anyone. There is one former minister sitting behind me, and I remember having some discussions with him of a challenging nature. I completely reject what you are suggesting. Q311 Paul Flynn: You have suggested that the minister should concentrate on certain areas which are administration in your reply. How can a minister, particularly the last Home Secretary, concentrate on the administration when his whole life is full of new projects, new wheezes, these great enterprises of introducing an identity card system, re-organising the police? Is it possible for one minister to concentrate on the administration? Is that not surely the job of the civil servants, and should not heads have rolled? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Remember, there is more than one minister in the Home Office, for a start, but the Secretary of State, if you asked Charles Clarke about these issues, he would say - and he was quite clear - he takes responsibility for the Department and all it does. Certainly, from the Civil Service side, I think mistakes were made and we need to learn the lessons of that, and we will do that, I can assure you. Q312 Paul Flynn: In your review of the capability of the civil service and the efficiency, have you noticed a correlation between the amount of legislation the department has and the inefficiency and bad outcomes of that department, and that the more bills are passed, the worse the department performs? The Home Office is an example. I think they have had more legislation, two bills a year, and they are the ones that are disaster-prone. Sir Gus O'Donnell: Certainly, if you have lots of legislation, that is quite a big burden on a department in terms of bill teams, in terms of assisting Ministers in taking those bills through the House, but the Prime Minister and various secretaries of state in the Home Office have taken the view, and it is their democratic right as politicians, that actually, some changes in the law were necessary in order to improve outcomes in terms of reducing crime. That is it; the Department has to get on and deliver as best it can. Q313 Paul Flynn: Finally, do you think that the honours system is now in such a state that having an honour has become so degraded that it might be more prestigious to refuse honours? Perhaps we should introduce a new suffix that people can add to their names: "has refused honour", HRH. Sir Gus O'Donnell: I am glad to say refusal rates are very low, and remain very low. As I say, those unsung heroes that constitute the 85 per cent of the MBEs and OBEs, for them it is enormously satisfying that we are able to find a way of providing recognition to those people who have contributed a vast amount and worked way beyond that extra mile. I just feel that somehow we under-value that and I think it is very important. Q314 Julie Morgan: I also wanted to ask about the issue of the foreign prisoner release. I was concerned when you were responding to the Chairman about whether a special inquiry was going to be set up to look at it, but when you responded to Jenny, I understand it is going to be part of the Capability Review. Is that correct? Sir Gus O'Donnell: The Department will concentrate on putting things right, so it will be forward-looking. That is its number one concern at the moment. Certainly, they will need to look at lessons learned from the specific episode and they will do that. The other aspect, what the capability review will be looking at, is basically whether the Department is fit for purpose, and as part of that it will look at organisational span, for example. Q315 Julie Morgan: It just seems that that is not a sort of swift and good enough response to deal with the situation that we have had. Are you satisfied that there has been a swift enough response within the Civil Service to see why these mistakes were made? Sir Gus O'Donnell: It seems to me the important thing for us was to analyse why the problem had emerged, primarily to ensure we put it right as quickly as possible. That to me is the number one priority, and I think that is what the British public's priority is, to ensure that people who possibly should have been deported are dealt with as quickly as possible. That is where all the focus is at the moment. Of course, in doing that work they have looked back and said, "Why do these things arise?" and there are all sorts of issues to do with the difficulties there are in establishing nationality for a number of prisoners. These are issues which are being addressed and we will ensure that we have a very robust system going forward. Yes, mistakes have been made, and for me, it is really important that we put the system right as quickly as possible and ensure that we solve the problem which I think the British public is worried about, that people have been let out who should not have been. Q316 Julie Morgan: Are you surprised no official resigned? It has happened in other departments. Sir Gus O'Donnell: It certainly has on occasions, but there is quite a lot of movement in these areas and actually, when you look at something like Immigration and Nationality Directorate, actually, they have been performing incredibly well in a number of those areas like the tipping-point target that was established by the Prime Minister; they are now achieving that and have been achieving it for a number of months. So actually, when you look across the whole board at what IND has been doing, they have had a number of successes, certainly in this area; the relationship between IND and the prison side was certainly not as good as it should be. Q317 Julie Morgan: So you do not think anybody in the Civil Service should have resigned over this major failure? Sir Gus O'Donnell: What I am saying is I am not clear that there was sufficient direct accountability or responsiveness for that to have been appropriate. Q318 Julie Morgan: There is nobody accountable in the Civil Service for what happened? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that this would have been assessed by their line managers along the way and people will be looking at what lessons to learn and whether staff changes are necessary. Q319 David Heyes: I want to go back to the Committee on Standards in Public Life briefly. When Sir Alistair Graham came to see us recently, he said that the test of his independence was that he reported directly to the Prime Minister. When we asked him how often he met the Prime Minister, his answer was that he had never met the Prime Minister, in relation to the work of his committee anyway, and said that he carried out that role through the Cabinet Secretary. How often has he met with you in relation to the work of his committee? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think twice recently. Remember, I have not been in post that long. Once or twice certainly. We talked about his programme going forward, I think, the last time we met. Q320 David Heyes: Did he discuss with you the issues of the fact that he has been operating with a 40 per cent reduction in his staffing budget for at least three years, maybe longer now? Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think we are all living in a world where budgets are tight. I gave the Committee a memorandum explaining the amount of money we are spending on these committees, and I look forward to your response to that. Q321 David Heyes: Forty per cent of his staff year after year after year is somewhat out of the norm of looking for savings. His budget is part of the Cabinet Office budget, is it not? I understand that that 40 per cent cut came about because of the overall move to reduce the size of the Cabinet Office budget. Sir Gus O'Donnell: That is right. The question of how we allocate staff is an interesting one. I can imagine a situation - and this is where I think your report is important - where we decide to set these up as independent bodies, then we will independently fund them and give them independent staffing. Q322 David Heyes: So the independence that Sir Alistair asserts through his reporting role to the Prime Minister is a myth; it is not reality at all? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. He reports directly to the Prime Minister. Q323 David Heyes: He offered to carry out an inquiry into loans for peerages, which you declined. Had you accepted it, he told us that he would have needed to come to you to beg, steal or borrow staff from the Cabinet Office to carry out that investigation. That hardly looks like independence. Sir Gus O'Donnell: I think there is a serious issue there, and this will be an issue going forward because, as you know, we have already settled that in the next Spending Review and the Cabinet Office will be having minus five per cent real every year on its budget. So budgets are going to get tighter, so there are going to be even less resources going forward from the Cabinet Office budget. Q324 David Heyes: Is this a signpost that the intention is to finally kill what appears to be this emasculated creature of the Cabinet Office completely? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. I am very interested in your views. You are looking at the whole set of ethical regulators. I would be very interested in your views about what the appropriate roles of PASC and Sir Graham's committee are. For example, I think, as I have said, the issue on the Lords and peerages is actually something that a parliamentary committee is better suited to than an independent committee. Q325 Paul Rowen: Could I just ask you about the direction that the Prime Minister gives to the committees in terms of public honours? You were asked earlier on about peerages. What about knighthoods and other honours? Is the direction given that so and so, because they have given so much money for a particular project, should be eligible for an honour? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No, the Prime Minister does not do that. Q326 Paul Rowen: Are quotas set for particular government initiatives that we ought to be rewarding people who have been involved in academies or health trusts? Sir Gus O'Donnell: No. It is just a strategic direction, and the independent chairmen can make of it what they will. Q327 Paul Rowen: Could I just ask you then about the Home Office? You mentioned the IND. Last week there was a question asked in the House about the backlog of 60,000 cases that had been sent to the AIT. The then Minister for Constitutional Affairs denied it was her Department's responsibility. Is that another example of the IND sort of inability to cope with the workload, where 60,000 cases are suddenly discovered in a cupboard? Sir Gus O'Donnell: There was certainly a situation dating back quite a long time, I think, in terms of there being backlogs at IND, and I know that they have been working very hard to improve their systems. If you look objectively at what IND has done, in a number of areas they have seriously improved the service delivery that they offer, but yes, there were large backlogs and yes, they have not worked through those yet. Q328 Paul Rowen: Have you carried out an investigation as to what the cause of that backlog was? Sir Gus O'Donnell: They have been working on trying to solve that. This backlog existed many years ago, so I do not know actually whether they have carried out such an investigation. Q329 Mr Prentice: Very briefly, our remit includes propriety and standards. Should the Deputy Prime Minister hang on to Dorneywood and Admiralty Arch? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Dorneywood is one of those residences which is for the Prime Minister to decide on. In terms of Admiralty Arch, that is clearly, again, the same thing. I was thinking about his offices. They are in 26. Q330 Mr Prentice: I am just thinking about the government estate, official residences, and I just wonder if it is part of your job to monitor the use of official residences so that they can be allocated as between government ministers in a fair way. Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is up to the Prime Minister to allocate them. The terms of the trust are very specific. Dorneywood Trust, for example, has said very clearly it is for the Prime Minister to use or to allocate to a minister for general and private use. There is no public cost, I stress, to Dorneywood. Q331 Mr Prentice: So even if the Deputy Prime Minister did not use Dorneywood because he had other things to do with his time, there would not be a question about using this valuable resource more productively by giving it to another minister? Sir Gus O'Donnell: It is for the Prime Minister to decide how he allocates different residences. Q332 Chairman: One final question. I asked a Cabinet Minister the other day what he most wanted from the Civil Service and the person said, "Better quality, more expertise." We have had evidence here from former Cabinet Ministers, both Labour and Conservative, who have effectively said the same thing, particularly in terms of the need for better expertise to support them. What I want to ask you is, have you ever systematically asked ministers and former ministers what they want from the Civil Service and what they think they are not getting? Sir Gus O'Donnell: Systematically? That is a good question. When I was in the Treasury as Permanent Secretary there, I used to go round to the ministers at six-monthly intervals and talk to them about the service they were getting from the Department and ask them for their feedback, which were the areas they thought were strong, where were the weaknesses, were there any parts of the support mechanism they thought were not operating very well, and I would imagine permanent secretaries doing that. Certainly, for the Cabinet Office, I will do that now I have my three ministers. I think that is an important part of a permanent secretary's job, checking all the time as to whether you have that service. Could we do something more systematic? That is a very good question, certainly in terms of the Professional Skills for Government. I recognise the point you make that we do need to improve our expertise. I think that will involve, coming back to an earlier question, getting best talents in from the wider public sector and the private sector as well, but more systematically getting that feedback from Ministers I think is a rather good idea and something we might pursue. Chairman: Thank you for that and thank you for this morning. We have covered a lot of territory, as always. We are grateful for that. Until next time, thank you. [1] Commission for Racial Equality |