CHAPTER 4: Strengthening the Civil Service
218. The third function of the Cabinet Office
is "Strengthening the Civil Service—to ensure that
the civil service is organised effectively and has the capability
in terms of skills, values and leadership to deliver the Government's
objectives".[20]
Several witnesses argued that the threefold Cabinet Office functions
were an uneasy combination. Dr Heffernan thought that they were
"essentially incompatible". (Q 35) Professor Kavanagh
argued that the Cabinet Office was "overloaded" and
had "lost sight of its original objectives", (Q 45)
while Lord McNally thought that some of the Cabinet Office's functions
were "mutually exclusive". (Q 106) Dr Blick and
Professor Jones thought that "the Cabinet Office suffers
from institutional schizophrenia" and had "taken on
multiple personalities, which can contradict one another".
(p 174) Perhaps the greatest area of contention in this area
was whether it was appropriate for the Cabinet Office to combine
the responsibilities outlined in the previous chapters with that
of managing the Civil Service.
I) THE CABINET OFFICE'S RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
219. Witnesses expressed concern at how the Cabinet
Office's responsibility for strengthening the Civil Service could
be reconciled with its other functions. The Cabinet Office has
not always exercised responsibility for the Civil Service. Prior
to 1968, the Treasury held departmental responsibility. Following
the recommendation of the Fulton Report, a new Civil Service Department
was established in that year. It was abolished in 1981, when its
responsibilities were split between the Treasury and the Cabinet
Office. The Cabinet Office only assumed sole responsibility for
the Civil Service in 1995. (Memorandum by Sir Robin Mountfield,
pp 68-9)
220. Peter Riddell argued that the "dual
role" had produced "a lot of tensions" and "confusion"
and that responsibility for the Civil Service should be handled
separately. (QQ 20, 33) Dr Heffernan claimed that "we
hide the Civil Service away", and recommended the re-establishment
of the Civil Service Department. (QQ 46, 68) Whilst advocating
that responsibility for the Civil Service should lie in the centre,
Sir Richard Mottram agreed that it did not necessarily need to
be undertaken in the Cabinet Office. (p 35)
221. On the other hand, Dr June Burnham, formerly
Senior Lecturer, Middlesex University, acknowledged that whilst
"the 'architecture' joining civil service management to the
Cabinet Office policy role is the least settled organisationally
… the least problematical solution has been attachment to
the Cabinet Office". (p 178)
222. The debate about responsibility for the
Civil Service is intrinsically linked to the question of whether
the Cabinet Secretary should be the Head of the Home Civil Service.
II) THE CABINET SECRETARY'S ROLE
AS HEAD OF THE HOME CIVIL SERVICE
223. The role of Head of the Civil Service has
changed hands over the years. The post was held by the Permanent
Secretary to the Treasury for many years, until the Permanent
Secretary of the new Civil Service Department assumed responsibility
in 1968. In 1981, the Cabinet Secretary and the Permanent Secretary
to the Treasury became joint Heads of the Home Civil Service,
until the Cabinet Secretary assumed sole responsibility in 1983.
(Memorandum by Sir Robin Mountfield, p 68)
224. Sir Robin Mountfield thought that the combination
of the posts of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service
"creates a massive burden, and it is a matter of perennial
debate whether the posts should be combined. … If they were
not combined, the case for Civil Service management being in the
Cabinet Office would be weaker, and the case for a separate Civil
Service Department stronger … The prime claimed advantage
… is the need for somebody with frequent access to the Prime
Minister to be there to lead and represent the Civil Service ...
The contrary argument is that he may be somewhat conflicted …
There is an argument on both sides of this debate, therefore,
and it seems to me that you could run it either way." (Q 173,
p 69)
225. Lord Lipsey told us that he did not think
that one person should hold both posts, since they are "quite
different functions and … protecting and promoting the status
of civil servants is best separated from … what the Cabinet
Secretary now inevitably is, the Prime Minister's senior policy
adviser". (Q 105)
226. Sir Michael Bichard did not think it possible
for one person to be able to fulfil both roles. (Q 195) Rachel
Lomax agreed that "the combined role has been a force for
blurring boundaries and … they are functionally quite different.
There is no reason on earth why the Head of the Civil Service
should be the Cabinet Secretary. If you look at the personal qualities
required, increasingly you need different sorts of people".
(Q 195)
227. Professor Kavanagh argued that it was necessary
to consider whether a separate, specialised head of the Civil
Service was needed because the burdens on the Cabinet Secretary
"are so enormous these days". (Q 45) Sir Richard
Mottram agreed that the post "is seriously overloaded",
and that the two roles "require different skills and experience
… the logic and implications of combining the roles need
more testing". (p 35) On the other hand, Jonathan Powell
thought that the principal job of the Cabinet Secretary should
be to manage the reform of the Civil Service. (p 181)
228. Lords Armstrong, Butler and Wilson argued
that the present arrangements had "worked well". (p 55)
Lord Armstrong told us that, as Cabinet Secretary, he had thought
that "the senior official in the best position to act as
Head of the whole of the Civil Service was the Cabinet Secretary,
simply because he was the senior official who saw and dealt with
the Prime Minister most frequently … the spider at the centre
of the web." (QQ 120, 134)
229. Lord Turnbull agreed that a separation "has
been tried twice and it was a flop both times. If you talk to
the people who got the job as Head of the Home Civil Service …
I think that they would probably say, 'I wish I'd never done it'.
They got very badly isolated." (Q 165)
230. The current Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell,
believed that the functions of the post fit together well and
that previous attempts to separate them out had not worked well,
(Q 342) and Tessa Jowell argued that "the current configuration
of responsibilities works well". (p 132)
231. We find persuasive the arguments which
we have heard that the current arrangement where the Cabinet Secretary
acts as Head of the Civil Service has worked well. We therefore
recommend that the Cabinet Secretary should continue to fulfil
the function of Head of the Civil Service, and that the Cabinet
Office should retain responsibility for managing the Civil Service.
III) THE ROLE OF THE CABINET SECRETARY
232. The Cabinet Secretary plays a pivotal role
in the operation of the Cabinet Office and the centre as a whole.
Aside from his role as Head of the Home Civil Service, the Cabinet
Secretary has traditionally had primary responsibility for supporting
Cabinet and the Prime Minister in his role as Chair of Cabinet.
233. Former Cabinet Secretaries gave us an insight
into the broader aspects of the role. Lord Armstrong told us that
the Cabinet Secretary acts as a guardian of the collective responsibility
of government. (Q 109) Lord Butler said that, in his experience,
"a Cabinet Secretary was the chief engineer on the ship of
state, making sure that the decisions that the Prime Minister
and the Cabinet took on the bridge were transmitted into the system".
(Q 113) In their joint submission, they and their successor,
Lord Wilson, asserted that they had each "been constantly
conscious of his responsibility to the Cabinet collectively and
of the need to have regard to the needs and responsibilities of
the other members of the Cabinet (and indeed of other Ministers)
as well as those of the Prime Minister". (p 54)
234. Sir Gus O'Donnell told us that his role
included "advising the Prime Minister and being at his side
for key meetings ... You need to be clear that you want to be
involved in the big, strategic decisions", such as economic
issues in the current climate. (Q 346) He also said that
he had a role in relation to cross-departmental working, because
"if you want them to collaborate and in particular pool money
they need a bit of bashing heads together". (Q 349)
235. There was also recognition that the role
of Cabinet Secretary was an onerous one. Lord Armstrong told us
that "the job of Cabinet Secretary is a very big one and
involves a great deal of work, with very long hours and many pressures".
He told us that his assumption of responsibility for the Civil
Service in 1981 necessitated the delegation of other functions,
such as the preparation of briefs for the Prime Minister on Cabinet
business. (Q 134)
236. His successors were confronted with a similar
dilemma, which they responded to in different ways. Lord Turnbull
did not think the Cabinet Secretary could combine his role as
the Prime Minister's security adviser with his other functions.
His solution was to delegate his role as the Prime Minister's
principal security and intelligence adviser. (QQ 165, 173)
Sir Gus O'Donnell told us that, though he did delegate much of
this work, he was the accounting officer for the security and
intelligence agencies. (Q 348)
237. Several other witnesses felt that the post
of Cabinet Secretary was overloaded. Sir Richard Mottram reflected
on attempts "to help tackle overload by vesting significant
responsibilities in another Permanent Secretary in charge of public
service change (as in the 1990s) or more recently the cluster
of intelligence, security and civil contingencies but these arrangements
are no longer in place. This makes the overload problem worse."
(p 35) Sir Michael Bichard felt that "the Cabinet Secretary
ought to have very direct responsibility for … supporting
the Prime Minister and the Cabinet", but "you probably
need someone" reporting to the Cabinet Secretary who is "a
director for civil and public services". (Q 186)
238. For Peter Riddell, there was a wider problem,
in that he argued that in recent years, "Cabinet Secretaries
found themselves less as a key co-ordinator of policy advice than
their predecessors were and much more personnel heads of the Civil
Service and in charge of delivery and delivery co-ordination".
Mr Riddell argued that a contributory factor was the presence
"around Tony Blair" of "Jonathan Powell, Alastair
Campbell and others as well as quite powerful special advisers
on the policy side". (Q 26) Sir Richard Mottram said
that "developments since 1997 have at times significantly
weakened the Cabinet Secretary's role as a strategy and policy
adviser at the heart of government". (p 35) Dr Heffernan
thought that, whilst the role had grown, the Cabinet Secretary's
"personal authority has probably diminished in the past ten
years". (Q 45) Dr Seldon agreed that "the Cabinet
Secretary needs to be again a figure of real stature … who
can stand up for the Civil Service and stand up to the Prime Minister".
(p 182)
239. While Lord Donoughue did not think that
there had been a "decline in the calibre of individuals",
he felt that recent Cabinet Secretaries "appear frustrated
to some extent" because "the bureaucratic machine around
them was somehow dismantled and it became much more difficult
for them to impose the efficient will that had been the characteristic
of Sir John Hunt", Cabinet Secretary from 1973-79. (QQ 103-4)
240. On the other hand, Baroness Hogg told us
that "the job is as important as it ever was … and I
have the greatest respect for the current Cabinet Secretary …
The question … is whether the pressures on them have changed
and whether it is more difficult to do the job". (Q 306)
Tessa Jowell argued that "the Cabinet Secretary retains an
important and central role in providing strategic policy advice".
(p 132)
241. Sir Gus O'Donnell rejected the claims that
he had a reduced voice in big strategic decisions (Q 347):
"It depends on the engagement between the individual
Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister of the day as to how
they use their Cabinet Secretary, but I would certainly say I
am not short of things to do … I certainly believe that I
have all the personal authority I need." (Q 346)
242. We note the Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus
O'Donnell's assertion that he has "all the personal authority
I need", and agree with his assessment that much "depends
on the engagement between the individual Cabinet Secretary and
the Prime Minister of the day as to how they use their Cabinet
Secretary." Nonetheless we note with concern the evidence
we have received suggesting that the authority of the Cabinet
Secretary has diminished. The Cabinet Secretary has a vital role
to play in ensuring the effective operation of government, and
should retain the authority needed to fulfil this function with
the full support and backing of the Prime Minister.
IV) THE CABINET OFFICE AND CAPABILITY
REVIEWS
243. An addition to the work of the Cabinet Secretary
is the Capability Review Programme. The programme was launched
by Sir Gus O'Donnell in 2005 and has been conducted, since June
2007, by the Civil Service Capability Unit in the Cabinet Office.
Capability Reviews aim to address "underlying capability
issues that impact on effective delivery, such as:
- Do departments have the right
strategic and leadership capabilities?
- Do they know how well they are
performing, and do they have the tools to fix their problems when
they underachieve?
- Do their people have the right
skills to meet both current and future challenges?
- Do they engage effectively with
their key stakeholders, partners and the public?" [21]
All departments across Whitehall had been reviewed
by December 2007. The second phase of reviews commenced in early
2008.
244. The Government stated that Capability Reviews
had "led to a step change in the way departments are held
to account for their ability to lead, set strategy and deliver
on their objectives". They argued that the Programme had
been successful, with all departments demonstrating "evidence
of improvement", and pointed out that a 2009 independent
review by the National Audit Office "confirmed that the programme
had improved capability in Whitehall departments". (p 118)
245. Sir Gus O'Donnell argued that Capability
Reviews "have provided support and opportunity for Permanent
Secretaries to be challenged and informed by peers from both the
public and private sectors with a view to enhancing leadership
and delivery". (p 162) Tessa Jowell likewise asserted
that they "have opened up Whitehall to external challenge
and provided Permanent Secretaries with the opportunity to gain
highly detailed objective assessment of performance from experts
in both the public and private sectors", and that "the
Cabinet Secretary has a strong focus on the capability of departments,
across the range of their activities". (pp 131-2)
246. Other witnesses affirmed the value of Capability
Reviews. Sir Michael Bichard thought that "the current Cabinet
Secretary has shown a great deal of courage in putting those
in place … there are criticisms of Capability Reviews but
people do take them seriously … and permanent secretaries
and departments have taken notice of what they have said and acted
upon it … I think they have been a force for good".
(Q 189) He did add that they needed to be developed, and
hoped that in the future they would place more emphasis on "the
importance of joining-up across not just departments but across
sectors". (Q 194)
247. Sir Richard Mottram told us that Capability
Reviews were "a partnership between the centre and departments,
and I think the view of departments … is that it has worked
well and it has improved their capability". (Q 84) Baroness
Hogg said that the work that the Cabinet Secretary was carrying
out in this regard was "enormous". (Q 306)
248. Peter Riddell agreed that Capability Reviews
had probably "improved the quality of top financial management
and personnel management in departments". However, he said
that the weakness of this approach was that they could not deal
with "the whole complexity of the Civil Service-minister
relationship … there is that sense that the Cabinet Office
is acting as a check but it is a very unsatisfactory one …
are they the proper people to do it?" (Q 29)
249. We note the work undertaken by the Cabinet
Office in delivering Capability Reviews of departmental activity.
We believe that the Cabinet Office is the most appropriate department
to undertake this work.
20 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/about_the_cabinet_office.aspx
Back
21
Civil Service (2009) Capability Reviews: Background http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/improving/capability/CapabilityRev-BG.aspx
Back
| 
