2 Benefits and risks associated with
interchange
14. The Business Appointment Rules for Civil
Servants state that:
It is in the public interest that people with experience
of public administration should be able to move into business
or other bodies outside central Government, and that such movement
should not be frustrated by unjustified public concern over a
particular appointment. It is equally important that when a former
civil servant takes up an outside appointment there should be
no cause for justified public concern, criticism or misinterpretation.
The aim of the Rules is to avoid any reasonable concerns
that:
a) a civil servant might be influenced in carrying
out his or her official duties by the hope or expectation of future
employment with a particular firm or organisation, or in a specific
sector; or
b) on leaving the Civil Service, a former civil servant
might improperly exploit privileged access to contacts in Government
or sensitive information; or
c) a particular firm or organisation might gain an
improper advantage by employing someone who, in the course of
their official duties, has had access to:
i. information relating to unannounced or proposed
developments in Government policy, knowledge of which may affect
the prospective employer or any competitors; or
ii. commercially valuable or sensitive information
about any competitors.[5]
The Business Appointment Rules for Ministers open
with similar statements.[6]
15. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, the
Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, told us that the UK has "a poor
record in this country of making a success of people coming into,
for example, the civil service from outside and then being able
to leave it" and that he wants "the best people to be
encouraged to do that".[7]
Chandrashekhar Krishnan, Executive Director of Transparency
International UK, agreed saying that "there is a lot of benefit
to be gained from having very competent people moving back and
forth between the public and private sectors, and I personally
do not see anything wrong with that. I think it is healthy, but
the system to control it needs to be much more robust".[8]
16. The Campaign Against the Arms Trade also
acknowledged the "undoubted benefits" from interchange
between the public and private sectors, but did not
agree that the public interest in movement from the public to
the private sector was "self-evident", and referred
to a potential "threat to the public interest mainly coming
from the prospect of future employment and the lobbying of former
colleagues".[9]
17. The potential benefits,
and the risks, associated with widespread interchange between
the public and private or third sectors are clear. We share the
view that interchange between sectors is in the public interest
but, if public confidence in public servants is to be maintained,
the risks associated with interchange must be openly acknowledged
and seen to be managed effectively. Any organisation or system
which is put in place to manage those risks must command the public's
respect and confidence if its decisions are to be trusted.
Impact of the Big Society and
Civil Service reforms
18. Lifetime careers in the Civil Service are
becoming the exception rather than the norm. The growing use of
short-term contracts rather than recruitment of career civil servants
has been a live issue for more than a decade, and was identified
as a potential challenge to the application of the Rules by ACoBA
as long ago as 1999.[10]
19. The current Government is committed to further
fundamental reform of public service delivery. In its proposals
for Civil Service reform, published in June 2012, the Government
says that "the old binary choice between monolithic in-house
provision and full scale privatisation has been replaced by a
number of new ways of delivering services—joint ventures,
employee-owned mutuals and entering into new partnerships with
the private sector".[11]
This approach will inevitably increase the number of officials
who have regular and direct contact with organisations outside
the public sector, and who also have the opportunity to influence,
or be influenced by, the interests of those organisations.[12]
20. Sir Christopher Kelly, Chairman of the Committee
on Standards in Public Life, said "it is certainly the case
that as interchange increases there will be more issues where
a balance has to be struck between preserving the public interest
and the desire to promote interchange".[13]
21. The Government pointed out that:
waiting periods are now applying in circumstances
when individuals leave the service mid-career, sometimes as a
result of an enforced departure, or on completion of a fixed term
appointment of just a few years' duration and with no severance
or other compensatory payment. [14]
[…] [There] is a real danger that business appointment requirements
can act as a disincentive in attracting good quality candidates
because of concerns that they may not be able to return unconditionally
to a job in their sphere of expertise at the end of the fixed
term.
This creates a real danger that talented individuals
are penalised for time spent in public service. Admiral The Rt
Hon The Lord West of Spithead, former Under-Secretary of State
for Security and Counter-Terrorism, explained that:
The reason that I was brought back into government
was […] my huge depth of knowledge about security […]
but what I then found amusing, three years later when I finished
as a Minister, was being told that I had to go through the [ACoBA]
process again because of all this depth of knowledge on security
that I had gained when I was a Minister which made me much more
marketable outside.[15]
22. Spinwatch described this tension as "balancing
expertise and vested interests".[16]
Sir Christopher Kelly distinguished between the professional skills
and expertise for which individuals may be recruited, and those
specific skills that people would acquire while working in the
public sector:
I am not surprised that people who have spent most
of their working lives in and around Government and the legislature
should, when seeking future employment, find that one of their
main skills is precisely providing advice to people about how
Government and the legislature works.
I do not see any difficulty in principle with people
doing that. When it gets down to access and lobbying I feel differently
about it. [17]
23. Witnesses identified particular risks connected
to specialisation of skills obtained in certain departments, such
as the Ministry of Defence.[18]
Lord Lang explained that some defence staff develop such a depth
of expertise in defence contracting that "you can understand
why it is possible that quite a lot of them may decide they want
to go into that area. Those are the ones we must monitor, or make
sure the permanent secretary and the department monitor".[19]
24. The extent of interchange
between the public and other sectors seems certain to rise as
Government reforms to the Civil Service and public service delivery
are implemented. If the Civil Service is to continue to attract
the brightest and ablest individuals, it is crucial that such
people are not penalised for working in the public sector. Any
restrictions applying to their subsequent employment must be proportionate
to the risk of impropriety, taking into account their skills and
expertise; their role(s) in the public sector; and the need to
uphold public confidence in the probity of those in public office.
5 Business Appointment Rules for Civil Servants (February
2011) paragraphs 2 and 3 Back
6
Business Appointment Rules for former Ministers (May 2010) Back
7
Q 452 Back
8
Q 147 Back
9
Ev 63 Back
10
The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments Second Report
(1998-99), paragraph 19, p 9 Back
11
Cabinet Office, The Civil Service Reform Plan
(June 2012) page 8 Back
12
Ev 75 Back
13
Q 30 Back
14
Ev 75 Back
15
Q 160 Back
16
Ev 69 Back
17
Qq 56-57 Back
18
Q 110 Back
19
QQ 393-394 Back
| 
