Public Accounts Committee
Oral evidence: Making a whistleblowing policy work: progress update, HC 602
Monday 7 December 2015
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 7 December 2015
Watch the meeting: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/89198f1b-306b-40f1-a0fa-6e7a22ac129c
Members present: Mr Richard Bacon (Chair), Deirdre Brock, Caroline Flint, Kevin Foster, David Mowat, Stephen Phillips, Karin Smyth
In the absence of the Chair, Mr Bacon was called to the Chair.
Adrian Jenner, Director of Parliamentary Relations, National Audit Office, Paul Oliffe, Director, NAO, and Marius Gallaher, Alternate Treasury Officer of Accounts, HM Treasury, were in attendance.
Witnesses: John Manzoni, Chief Executive of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Alison Stanley, Head Of Civil Service Employee Policy, Cabinet Office, gave evidence.
Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon’s second session of the Public Accounts Committee. We are taking evidence on whistleblowing, which is an important source of intelligence to help the Government to identify wrongdoing and risks to the delivery of public services.
In the previous Parliament, a number of high profile issues came to the Committee’s attention, including out-of-hours GP services and tax avoidance. The Committee took evidence from the Department for Education, the Department of Health, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence. Common issues included that many concerns of employees go unreported and that the intelligence that does exist is not routinely collected and shared. The Committee pointed out that it is essential for employees to have trust in the system for handling whistleblowers. They must have confidence that they will be taken seriously. Far too often, whistleblowers are badly or even shockingly treated.
The Departments’ attempts to change policies and processes have not always been successful in modifying what is sometimes a bullying culture. We made a series of recommendations and we are here to examine progress against those recommendations. We are joined by John Manzoni, the chief executive of the civil service and the permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, and Alison Stanley, who leads for the Cabinet Office on civil service employment policy. You are both very welcome. In the first instance, Stephen Phillips will lead the questioning.
Q1 Stephen Phillips: Mr Manzoni and Ms Stanley, good afternoon. The Committee issued its report back in 2014 and the Treasury minutes that we are looking at are principally from December 2014. There was a supplementary note, as you may know, in February 2015 from Mr Heaton to the then Chair of the Committee. The Treasury minutes agreed with this Committee’s predecessor and suggested that HR directors should have overall responsibility within each Department for whistleblowing practices and policies. Has that happened in every Government Department? Is each HR director now responsible?
John Manzoni: My understanding is that we have certainly nominated board-level representatives of each Department. In addition, we have nominated officers, which are different to the board-level representatives. Alison may know whether I can say that for every single Department because we are now in the process of checking a year after the event. We certainly have issued a policy which states, for sure, board level membership and nominated officers in each Department.
Q2 Stephen Phillips: Forgive me, I do not want to take you unduly to task, but this is the Government’s response to the Committee’s report: “The Government believes that HR Directors should have overall responsibility within departments for whistleblowing practices, reporting to the Permanent Secretary.” All I want to know is whether that has now happened in every single Government Department.
John Manzoni: It has certainly happened. Alison may know whether it is in every single Government Department.
Alison Stanley: Yes, I can confirm that in each Government Department the HR director is accountable for the policy for collection of the data and for ensuring that the internal risk and audit committees review the effectiveness of the policies and any cases and data that are coming up on a regular basis. We also have in each Department a senior executive management board member who is accountable for whistleblowing in that Department, in order to give it extra force.
Q3 Stephen Phillips: The Government’s response went on: “HR Directors should report on a regular basis to their departmental board (including to Ministers, senior officials and non-executive directors) on how whistleblowing processes are operating in their department and on any lessons or improvements that can be made to the whistleblowing process and to wider systemic issues arising from complaints.” That is not happening, is it, Miss Stanley?
Alison Stanley: The accountability on the HR Director and the senior board member is to raise those issues via the risk and internal audit committee in each Department. We have information from a number of Departments that this is happening on a regular basis.
Q4 Stephen Phillips: What do you mean by regular basis?
Alison Stanley: The obligation is to do it at least once a year. In a couple of Departments we know it has been done on a more regular basis. Given the level of issues being raised, the report is obviously on the information that is available.
Q5 Stephen Phillips: Are you able to tell this Committee that in every single Government Department, at least once a year the HR director reports to the departmental board on whistleblowing issues?
John Manzoni: It is about a policy which was promulgated following this last hearing. The policy states that that would be the case. The policy was promulgated in February 2015, so a year from now—February 2016—we are going to do a review and find out whether that has been happening. The policy was promulgated and that is the case. Whether it is happening right now, in mid-flow, I am afraid it is rather difficult to say. Alison has done an informal checking ahead of this Committee, and that is why she has answered in the way that she has. We will be doing a check against the policy implementation early next year and that will tell you the answer to your question whether it has happened annually as required.
Q6 Stephen Phillips: Can I ask, Miss Stanley, from the informal checking, which Departments have yet to have a situation where the HR director has reported formally to the departmental board on whistleblowing policies in that Department?
Alison Stanley: I will have to come back to you on that.
Q7 Stephen Phillips: We will have a note on that, please. Can I ask about the culture? Obviously, the culture in the civil service in the past has been to discourage the making of protected disclosures—or whistleblowing, as it is known—because people felt they could not do it without jeopardising their careers. Mr Manzoni, do you feel that the policy which the Government have adopted is changing that?
John Manzoni: I think over time. Culture is a difficult thing to change. If you have run large organisations you know that it takes a long time.
Q8 Stephen Phillips: Would it be fair to say that it is taking time and, in fact, the culture is still there?
John Manzoni: To some degree, I think the culture is still there, but I do think it is changing. Quite a lot has been done to change it. For instance, we have issued a leadership statement, which has been bought into across the board. I think it is the first time we have actually stated that we need to have open, inspiring and confident leaders who encourage feedback and all those things. That is one aspect that we have done.
As I have said, we have pushed a policy across the civil service. We emphasised in December 2014 and again recently the need for whistleblowing to take place. We have changed policies and changed guidance documents. We are taking a number of credible steps to address this issue. Can I say that it has changed? Absolutely not completely, but do I think we are on the right track? I absolutely do.
Q9 Chair: If Mr Phillips will bear with me, there would be good points, would there not, at which to make clear that emphasis that you talked about? For example, during an induction process for a senior manager or a non-executive director, or simply when a worker was starting a new job. Is it now standard that when those inductions take place, the whistleblowing policy is emphasised and drawn to that person’s attention?
John Manzoni: To start at board level, the non-executive directors, we are on the point of pushing a consistent induction process for non-executive boards.
Q10 Chair: Can you just deconstruct that for me—“We are on the point of pushing”?
John Manzoni: Early next year. There is not, today, a consistent Government induction process; it is left to the Departments. We are at the behest of the lead non-executive. I agree with that: it makes no sense to have it all completely distributed. We will take a consistent approach across Government Departments, so the induction process for board level non-executives will include this. Early in spring next year we will be changing the audit committee guidance and the Cabinet Office guidance on corporate governance to do exactly the same thing. Those are being done. As of 2015-16 annual reports, all Departments are being asked to report on the status of the whistleblowing processes within their Department. That is the first time it has been published within their Departments and within their arm’s length bodies. That is a formal piece of process which will be in place and you will see the results of it as of the 2015-16 annual reports which are coming out at the end of this financial year.
So some steps are being taken to make sure that this gets some air, to make sure it is not completely buried and subdued, and we will start to get a better handle on it. We have also started collecting data for the first time. It did not exist. We have initiated a data-collection tool which is starting to show how many whistleblowing cases are taking place. There were 66 between April and September. So we are starting to get transparency and that is just the beginning of the process of opening this up. I think these are all reasonable actions to start getting at the culture and to start saying, “You have got to start looking at this stuff.”
Q11 Stephen Phillips: When you talk about the culture, are you talking just about the culture within the civil service, or are you talking about all public servants, whether or not they work for the civil service?
John Manzoni: As you know, the Government agreed with all the recommendations of the Committee and the follow-up.
Q12 Stephen Phillips: All but one, yes.
John Manzoni: Except for that one. As I look at this, we are simply not staffed or equipped to look at all public servants. The only question, therefore, is what is the most effective assurance that we can do.
Q13 Stephen Phillips: Given that you are responsible for implementing the Government’s policy, which applies not just to the civil service, how are you going to make sure that there is a change of culture across all sectors of the public service?
John Manzoni: The Treasury requirement that Departments publish whistleblowing data in their annual report extends beyond the civil service and into the wider public sector, to the public servants for whom that Department is responsible. I think that is a good way into this. We have guidance for Departments and the sponsoring areas of Departments which says, “Your arm’s length bodies need to do this.” It gets quite complicated because, of course, as you say, they are not all civil servants. So for instance the escalation route for an individual who is not a civil servant is very different from the escalation route for a civil servant.
Q14 Stephen Phillips: I am going to come back to third-sector bodies, if I may, but in March this year, for example, the College of Policing warned of a “macho, arrogant, bullying culture” in which whistleblowing is not embedded in the police service. We had Sir Robert Francis’s report the preceding month, in respect of which he told the BBC that “a significant proportion” of health workers were afraid to speak out. What are the Government doing, in terms of the implementation of their policy, to make sure that arm’s length bodies have effective whistleblowing policies which adequately protect those who wish to make protected disclosures which are in the public interest?
John Manzoni: There are legislative protections for whistleblowers, as you know.
Q15 Stephen Phillips: But there always were and that did not prevent this Committee making a series of recommendations which the Government felt obliged to accept.
John Manzoni: I am bound to say that, in the way the Government have already responded, the issues associated with the Department of Health or the police, for example, need to be addressed to the relevant Department, because they are held accountable for their bodies.
Q16 Stephen Phillips: Someone who is accountable within the civil service for this across Government, and presumably also in relation to arm’s length bodies, is Mr Thompson. I understand why he is not here. He is the head of the task and finish group on whistleblowing, isn’t he?
John Manzoni: Correct.
Q17 Stephen Phillips: How is that going? Do you know? Have you had a discussion with him in advance of this Committee?
John Manzoni: Yes, I have.
Q18 Stephen Phillips: How is the work of the group going?
John Manzoni: The committee—the task and finish group—did meet.
Q19 Stephen Phillips: How many times has it met?
John Manzoni: Once. It met shortly after the Committee hearing and came to several conclusions. First, it agreed the response to this Committee. Secondly, it affirmed and, I think, approved the new model policy, as a result of the findings of this Committee. It also concluded that the arm’s length body should not be covered in the same way, in the way that we are discussing right now. That was the conclusion of the task and finish group. It assessed that a board member ought to be responsible for whistleblowing, in the way that Alison has described. It promulgated a note from the Cabinet Secretary in December 2014 to ensure that Departments understood the significance and importance.
Q20 Stephen Phillips: That was a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to all permanent secretaries, is that right?
John Manzoni: It was.
Q21 Stephen Phillips: How many responses were received to that letter?
John Manzoni: I am not sure that it asked for responses, but it has been followed up with the model policy and the data-collection tool, which has taken place, and there are some early results. The first results will be published on 7 January next year.
Q22 Stephen Phillips: Don’t you find it surprising that something entitled the task and finish group on whistleblowing has met only once?
John Manzoni: I wasn’t there, and I was not in this post when it did meet. I do think that, if it concluded that there was a satisfactory suite of responses, there is probably—
Q23 Stephen Phillips: It made certain recommendations, for example, in relation to the adoption of the model policy. One would have expected it to have met again to see whether its recommendations had been complied with, wouldn’t one?
John Manzoni: Not necessarily, because, in fact, the model policy will be confirmed a year from when it was implemented, through Alison’s group. Alison’s group is responsible for the policy and for the assurance against the policy. Provided there is focus and that happens, the task and finish group does not need to do that. I think Alison and her group are—
Q24 Stephen Phillips: Are you on the task and finish group, Ms Stanley?
Alison Stanley: I was not at that meeting, no. We did an update report for the Cabinet Secretary in February 2015 as to the adoption of the model policy by the Government Departments. All but two of the Government Departments concerned had taken the model policy.
Q25 Stephen Phillips: What was the date of that report?
Alison Stanley: We did an update to the Cabinet Secretary in February 2015. Following his letter to the permanent secretaries in December, we followed up at the end of January with, “Have you nominated a senior board member? Have you either adopted the model policy or aligned your current policy to ensure that it complies with the model policy?” We had assurance from the 17 Departments that they had all done that.
Q26 Stephen Phillips: I think you said all but two.
Alison Stanley: All but two had actually decided, had taken our model policy. Two had policies in place that they amended in order for them to be in line with the model policy.
Q27 Stephen Phillips: Why did the task and finish group come to the conclusion that private and third-sector providers of public services should not be covered by the Government’s model policy on whistleblowing?
John Manzoni: These things are always a judgment. It concluded that the proportionate response was of course—as you can imagine—to put in place teams of people to check the checkers. Things have to be promulgated through policy, and things have to be delegated. That is the judgment made by the task and finish group. The civil service is simply not equipped in the centre.
Q28 Stephen Phillips: The difficulty with that is that I can well understand that looking after your own house is one thing, but a very significant proportion of public services are now being delivered through the private sector and through third sector bodies. There is no guarantee at all that those private sector and third sector organisations have in place whistleblowing policies at all, let alone whistleblowing policies which encourage their employees to make protected disclosures in the public interest.
John Manzoni: Look, the tone of your question, if I may—I think that actually the response to this particular set of inquiries has been quite good.
Q29 Stephen Phillips: The tone of the response across the civil service has been one of, “All right, we’ll get our own house in order, but everyone else can get their own house in order”.
John Manzoni: No, I think that we will find out when the Departments publish their response to their own reports in March 2016.
Q30 Stephen Phillips: But we won’t, will we? The data is going to measure how well they have done as a Department. It is not going to measure how well private sector and third sector bodies which are delivering public services on behalf of those Departments have done in relation to whistleblowing.
John Manzoni: I think that all of these things are a question of where you draw the line. There is a judgment to be made here.
Q31 Stephen Phillips: I agree with you, but I am just questioning whether or not the judgment has been struck in the right place, given the increasing amount of public services which are delivered other than by public servants.
John Manzoni: We need to start by getting our own house in order, and then we can maybe have a conversation about what happens from there. It is certainly true that as a result of this Committee’s interest, which has been very helpful, I actually believe that the civil service has responded relatively well to this, inside the service. We are now a year later. In a few months’ time we will have some detail on what that looks like. We have promulgated the policy, we will find out, we will publish it, we have some data collection tours—
Q32 Stephen Phillips: Let me make this suggestion to you, and you can take it back to Mr Thompson and the task and finish group, should it ever meet again. It could well be part of the contracts agreed with outside-Government entities that they signed up to a model whistleblowing policy which contained at least elements consistent with those of the model policy which the Government have promulgated. That would be eminently sensible, wouldn’t it, Mr Manzoni?
John Manzoni: I will take it back to Mr Thompson, as you suggest, and have a conversation with him.
Q33 Stephen Phillips: I am asking for your opinion, if you will forgive me. It would be eminently sensible, wouldn’t it?
John Manzoni: Yes, I think that it might be sensible to put some conditions into our standard contracts. In fact, actually as I speak to you now I do not know whether they are in or not. I would be surprised if they weren’t.
Q34 Stephen Phillips: The information I have is that it tends not to be part of the scoring system by reference to which tenders are scored. You may know differently. Anyway, this is something that the task and finish group ought to look at, and it ought to meet before February of next year, shouldn’t it? One meeting is not enough, Mr Manzoni, is it? It is a finish group. It is supposed to finish this process. It has had one meeting, back in February last year. You have accepted all of this Committee’s recommendations, bar one. It is as though it has gone into the long grass.
John Manzoni: Not quite. With respect, I think actually we have accepted all of the Committee’s recommendations, except for the one that you are now pushing on. All of the rest of the Committee’s recommendations are actually being followed up and being pursued, through Alison’s group. I think that we have a pretty good process, with the exception of the one that we didn’t accept.
Q35 Stephen Phillips: Sure. Ms Stanley, can I come to you? Which Departments are you most concerned about in terms of implementing good whistleblowing policy?
Alison Stanley: Across the board, Departments have the challenge which all employers have of ensuring that there is regular communication about the route that employees can—
Q36 Stephen Phillips: I will make sure that you are not damaging your career by answering my question. Which Departments are you most concerned about?
Alison Stanley: I am not able to say at this point. We are waiting for the data to come back as to the number of cases, the type of cases, what trends—if any—have been seen, what the internal risk and audit committees have thought about that—
Q37 Stephen Phillips: So you or Mr Thompson will be able to tell the Committee after February which Departments are not pulling their weight, as it were, on their whistleblowing policies. Is that right?
Alison Stanley: We will be in a better position then to see which Departments have particular challenges, what they are, and what we can do to support them on that.
Q38 Stephen Phillips: Departments were supposed to set timescales within which anyone making a public interest disclosure or blowing the whistle should be kept informed of the progress of the matter in respect of which they blew the whistle. How is that going?
Alison Stanley: The model policy sets out the timescales in which managers or the Department must get back to the people who—
Q39 Stephen Phillips: You know from the data that you have already collected that there are certain Departments which are not complying with those timescales, don’t you?
John Manzoni: I don’t think that we do know that from the data we are collecting. I think that what we have at the moment is some qualitative and some quantitative data. We have how many whistleblowing events there are and what nature they are, but actually the data is due in—
Alison Stanley: The full data is due in on 7 January.
Q40 Stephen Phillips: Do those data include people who have been victimised or in some way been affected detrimentally by the fact that they have blown the whistle? Is that measured in your data?
Alison Stanley: Yes. What is being asked for in the data is what has happened on a whistleblowing case, including whether that individual has raised a complaint of victimisation or discrimination as a result of having raised a concern under the civil service management code or having blown the whistle.
Q41 Stephen Phillips: I am trying to understand—all those data are going to come in February, supposedly after these policies or similar policies have been adopted into Departments after a year. Who is going to do the work and how many people will be dedicated to assessing those data to see how well the Committee’s recommendations are being following within Government?
John Manzoni: Alison’s team will do the work, and it will come to me and Jeremy and others to have a look at it and to make some judgments. We will have discussions with the permanent secretaries.
Q42 Chair: For the record, could you just confirm that when you say Jeremy you mean the Cabinet Secretary?
John Manzoni: Yes, the Cabinet Secretary.
Chair: It’s just that our viewers might not necessarily know who Jeremy is.
John Manzoni: Sorry. The Cabinet Secretary and myself and Alison’s team will collect those data from the data tool and do the analysis.
Q43 Stephen Phillips: Ms Stanley, how many people are on the team that will assess the data?
Alison Stanley: I operate a flexible resource model, so I can put the number of people that I need to on the data. We also have very strong networks with HR director colleagues, who are accountable in the Departments. We will have discussions and network meetings to understand whether there are issues or challenges coming up and what action—
Q44 Stephen Phillips: When do you anticipate that the report on the data will be ready to go to Mr Manzoni and Mr Heywood, so that we know how well the Government are doing?
Alison Stanley: The deadline for the full set of data is 7 January. It will then take us some time to analyse that. We anticipate that the report will be in February.
Q45 Stephen Phillips: During the course of February.
Alison Stanley: Yes, February 2016.
Q46 Stephen Phillips: Mr Manzoni, when do you think you will be in a position to assess that report, form some views and be able to come back to the Committee so that we can look again at this question?
John Manzoni: I cannot imagine that it will take all that long. In addition to these data, the Committee would benefit from looking at the returns that are required in the annual reports, which presumably will come in March or April, after the end of the financial year. I therefore suggest that with the benefit of those two pieces of information, that would be the best time for us to come and have another conversation about this matter.
Q47 Chair: Because the annual reports will or should state what the whistleblowing policy is.
John Manzoni: Actually, and a report on that.
Q48 Chair: And the extent to which it aligns with the model policy, presumably.
John Manzoni: Correct. That is what was asked for.
Alison Stanley: Yes. In the annual reports, it is about the effectiveness of the whistleblowing arrangements.
Q49 Chair: NAO, you look like you wanted to say something.
Paul Oliffe: I think it would be useful to understand, John, whether Departments are allowed to hold the pen solely on what they report in terms of the effectiveness, or whether it is your review, provided by CSEP, that will inform what Departments report on the effectiveness in their annual report and accounts.
John Manzoni: I think it will be covered under the normal appropriate arrangements for an annual report. You and others, and internal audit and the internal data, ought to inform what is put in the annual report, and then it will need to be assured in the normal way for data in an annual report. I think that is the answer. It is a formal document, so it needs to have a formal response.
Q50 Deidre Brock: There appears to be a lack of emphasis on what happens with the information that whistleblowers provide, which passes up opportunities not only to save substantial amounts of public money, but also to prevent crime and raise awareness of health and safety issues. We had a recent case where a Trident submariner in Scotland brought claims against the MOD that its investigation was simply a housekeeping exercise, rather than an attempt to investigate his accusations properly. What is being put in place to ensure that the information whistleblowers give is being investigated properly and that that information is being treated with as much respect as the whistleblowers should be?
John Manzoni: How long is a piece of string? Certainly the data collection tool is qualitative and quantitative. It is not just statistics, but the nature of the case and what is being done. We will be in a position to make judgments about that once we have seen some of the data. This is a delegated act; it has to be done in the Departments, but the tool that allows us to collect these cases will inform about the qualitative nature of how the cases have been handled. Among other methods, that will allow us to make a judgment about some of that.
Q51 Chair: You have mentioned the tool a couple of times. Is it a simple piece of software that allows people to enter things in a comparable form?
John Manzoni: It is a requirement to report.
Alison Stanley: Yes.
Q52 Caroline Flint: I think you mentioned earlier, Mr Manzoni, 66 cases this year. Is that what you said?
John Manzoni: No, April to September.
Q53 Caroline Flint: I do not know whether we got to this—have you got a breakdown of which Departments those cases came from that you could share with us?
John Manzoni: We do, although I think that the data are not yet complete.
Alison Stanley: No, they’re not.
Q54 Caroline Flint: You have had 66 cases in the past three months—
John Manzoni: No, six. April to September.
Q55 Caroline Flint: Fine. But you cannot tell us here which Departments they have come from.
John Manzoni: I think we could, but I do not know how helpful it would be.
Q56 Caroline Flint: Just give us an idea of which Department there may be more people whistleblowing from.
John Manzoni: The majority are where you would expect them, actually, in the big Departments—the big battalions. DWP was a lot.
Caroline Flint: DWP?
John Manzoni: HMRC represented a substantial amount. I think in total, the 66 were coming from six Departments.
Q57 Caroline Flint: Forgive me; is that higher than in an equivalent period?
John Manzoni: It is the first time we have collected the data.
Q58 Caroline Flint: Okay. I know you are saying to us that you are going to develop all this to report back in February, but just as these cases are coming in, are you doing at least a check against what the policy should be as to whether it is being applied for these individuals, rather than just collecting the information and stuffing it somewhere else?
John Manzoni: I think it is a bit early for that now because, as I say, this is the first time we have collected even the data. One cannot snap one’s fingers, change the culture and then collect all this data.
Q59 Caroline Flint: No, I am just asking who is judging whether the actual policy you have—
John Manzoni: Alison will, in due course, and we will on the basis of Alison’s report, once she has got all the data. I think that is fair.
Alison Stanley: That is right. The HR director is accountable in the normal course of business for ensuring that employee policies are being properly followed by line managers. We have specialist caseworkers who also advise line managers on it.
Q60 Caroline Flint: Just so that I am clear, are there any Departments in which there have been no people wanting to blow the whistle on activities?
John Manzoni: Apparently.
Caroline Flint: Apparently? Do we know which they are?
John Manzoni: I think it is true to say that there are some nil returns.
Alison Stanley: Some Departments have given nil returns.
Q61 Chair: Is that because they are pure and well managed, or because the staff are so terrified?
John Manzoni: I think that would remain to be seen.
Stephen Phillips: Or because they do not have anything to blow the whistle on.
John Manzoni: What are we doing? For instance, the model policy has route maps for people. We have got nominated officers to say, “This is how you blow the whistle.” I think there were several steps being taken over the course of the year to encourage people. It is the first time that we have collected the data to say, “Is it actually happening?” That is going on right now.
Q62 Caroline Flint: I know you were saying earlier about why, with the private sector and the voluntary sector that run contracts for the Government, you do not want to micromanage those organisations on this area, but how many cases have you had that have come into a Department where someone has gone directly to the Department to say, “I am really unhappy about what is going on here. You should know about this”? Have you had any cases like that?
John Manzoni: I do not know.
Alison Stanley: We would have to wait for the more detailed data on that.
Q63 Caroline Flint: Are you collecting that?
Alison Stanley: We will have information from the HR director on the nature of the cases. I would expect that that would be something that they would raise. In our nominated officers’ toolkit, which is our training toolkit for nominated officers, one of the case studies is an individual from a contractor company—a supplier—being concerned and raising the issue with the Department. We are very aware of that situation.
Q64 Caroline Flint: Have you any information on the number of people who have stepped up to raise concerns? How many of those are still working in their Department and how many of them have left, either voluntarily or otherwise? Let us just say that they have left.
Alison Stanley: That is part of the more detailed data we have asked for, but we do not have that at the moment.
Q65 Caroline Flint: Will you have that in February—I think that that was when you said? Will that data be available then?
John Manzoni: No, I said it would be after March.
Q66 Caroline Flint: Sorry, I misheard. Will you have that breakdown so that we will know whether people have stayed in the civil service Department or gone?
Alison Stanley: Yes, we will be able to get that.
Q67 David Mowat: I am just listening to this whole dialogue, and we are setting in place this whistleblowing reporting system and all the various things around the patch. Is there a risk that people will start to treat whistleblowing as a substitute for dealing with line managers? In a culture that works, whistleblowing should not have happened. I know that there have been some very bad incidents, but in a culture that works, we do not need whistleblowing and management reporting systems, with people keying in whistleblowing incidents and you reporting them all by Department, and saying that if there are not any for a certain Department, it might be because that Department is bullying. All this stuff ought to be reported in the first instance through line management and those processes. Is there a risk that doing all this undermines that?
John Manzoni: I hope not. It is true that even in the very best companies this problem exists. It is also true that, even in the very best private sector companies, there exist all these examples and issues of whistleblowing lines and hotlines, encouragement for people to blow whistles and the debate about whether the process should be extended into the third-party contractors and how far down the value chain. So I think we are right to keep pushing processes that encourage whistleblowing, should people choose to do it.
Q68 David Mowat: You used to work for a top private sector company. Is what you are doing now in the civil service similar to what you would have liked to see happen in BP, or similar to what happened in BP when you were there?
John Manzoni: The answer to that question is yes. We had policies and hotlines; we encouraged hotlines. We had to encourage people and to tell them, and to be clear about what the route maps were. All those things exist in companies outside the public sector.
As you know, one of the issues in the public sector is that prioritisation is hard. There are always lots of things to do in any one day, so I think a continued focus—from this Committee, for instance, and this sort of conversation—is not unhelpful. Do I think that we need to continue to work on accountability, and on the nature and culture of line management and leadership? Of course; I think that is all true. However, I don’t think we are in any danger of subverting that process through this encouragement.
Q69 Karin Smyth: That is interesting. You are unwilling to disclose which Departments you might be concerned about until after you had received your data, which I perhaps understand. Would it be fair to say the Department of Health was one of your better Departments? Would it be top of the list?
John Manzoni: You only have to look at the ombudsman’s report to see where the balance of things is there. It is a much bigger Department, it has far more arm’s length bodies and it has all those issues. However, as of now, I don’t think we have the data to be able to tell you. From our data collection, we just don’t have the data to tell you.
Q70 Karin Smyth: Given the major reports and investigations—I am obviously thinking in particular of the Francis review, and the lessons of that review about looking not only within your sphere or your bit of the system, but across the system—what lessons do you think you have learned that go across Departments?
John Manzoni: Among other things, the Francis review recommended a public guardian for the NHS to be placed in the CQC. It also recommended that each body should have the guardian of the NHS. That is very similar to our nominated officers in each Department. They are having the same issue that you are pushing on here: in a distributed system, how do you create an environment in which people are held accountable, or feel accountable, for putting in place good process?
I think the Francis review recommended that, among other things, and as you know, that is under way right now. It is being consulted upon, and the role and scope of the guardian of the NHS is being consulted upon right now. In addition, however, I am sure the same conversation is taking place within the health system about how to vest accountability and encourage it across a distributed system. That is a core recommendation of the Francis review and I think we are doing a very similar thing, so we are on the same journey.
Q71 Karin Smyth: I may be wrong, but some of the responses to questions still sound from this side quite siloed, in terms of the approach coming through a HR director in each Department and the senior executive board, rather than there perhaps being a more holistic look across, which is one of the lessons that, of course, has been learned in the Department of Health and may be a useful recommendation.
John Manzoni: I think the intent is that it isn’t siloed, although the data collection necessarily has to come up the lines of accountability. At that point, it can then be aggregated, and that is the point at which one can look at trends across Government, common issues and such things. If one starts to collect on every particular issue and you start to try to create a direct feed somehow into the centre, actually what that does is to muddle up completely lines of accountability.
What we have said, as we vest accountability in the Departments, is that the data therefore has to flow up the Departments. At that point, it can come to the centre. That is the point at which we can then start looking across, and we are in the first phase of that. We fully intend to look across once we have the data feeds, but I am a complete believer that data needs to come up the line of accountability.
Q72 Karin Smyth: My final point: have those HR directors or the senior executive board nominee had a briefing or discussion around, for example, Francis and how they might implement that?
Alison Stanley: They haven’t but, as John says, when we have the data and the experience, we want to share that across the civil service and also with policy colleagues who are looking at the wider public sector.
Q73 Karin Smyth: Might it be a good idea to have a major briefing on Francis across directorates with those individuals?
John Manzoni: Yes. For instance, the nominated officers have all been recently together for the promulgation of the toolkit, the learning experience and the sharing, so that process is now beginning across the civil service. I think they have had two meetings together and it has been very well received, so that should and will continue.
Q74 Stephen Phillips: When you say that the nominated officers have all been meeting, was that in the context of discussing whistleblowing at those two specific meetings?
John Manzoni: Yes. Their role is specifically in the matter of whistleblowing.
Q75 Stephen Phillips: I see. It seems there is still quite a lot to be done. I would like a couple of undertakings from you, Mr Manzoni, which I think you can give to this Committee, and to Parliament through this Committee. The first is that the task and finish group should meet again. Are you prepared to give that undertaking as Mr Thompson’s boss?
John Manzoni: No. As you well know, I am not anybody’s boss. I am happy to take it away and—
Stephen Phillips: You are the closest thing to one.
John Manzoni: I am happy to take it away and have a conversation with him. With regard to the civil service, I believe that we have good actions in place and the mechanisms through which—
Q76 Stephen Phillips: Those who carry the responsibility carry the can. They should be the ones who sign it off and say, “Actually, we don’t need to meet again because it has now been done,” so that should happen, shouldn’t it?
John Manzoni: I think they did conclude that at the last meeting. I am happy to have a conversation. I will undertake to have a conversation with Mr Thompson.
Q77 Stephen Phillips: If they did conclude it at the last meeting, they did so prematurely because, as this hearing has revealed, we do not yet have the data to know whether this is working.
John Manzoni: I am not sure we ever will.
Stephen Phillips: Well, you will certainly be in a better position in March.
John Manzoni: Yes, I believe we will, but it will still be unsatisfying—
Q78 Stephen Phillips: So the group needs to meet again; that is obvious, Mr Manzoni. Yes?
John Manzoni: I will talk to Mr Thompson about that, for sure.
Q79 Stephen Phillips: So that is the first thing. Secondly, I would like somebody to write to this Committee in March. Our time is very precious; we always have more work to do than we can actually cope with. After this report has come from Ms Stanley and those who work for her, and after it has gone to you and conclusions have been reached, I would like a detailed letter so that we can see whether the Committee needs to look at this area again in the immediate future. Will you undertake to write to us by the end of March with the outcome of the data review and where you think the position is?
John Manzoni: I can certainly undertake to do that, yes.
Q80 Stephen Phillips: So that will be by the end of March.
Moving on to a different topic, this Committee made a recommendation that the Government accepted in relation to severance payments and associated compromise agreements where they relate to whistleblowing. That was our seventh recommendation and the Government responded in the Treasury minutes that they agreed with the Committee’s recommendation. How many requests—this is probably to Ms Stanley—have there been in relation to special severance payments falling within that recommendation in the past two years?
John Manzoni: I think we would have to go and check. The recommendation has been implemented. Revised guidance and revised wording for severance payments was promulgated.
Q81 Stephen Phillips: If you do not know—it is within the scope of this hearing—you had better write to tell us how many requests have been made to the Cabinet Office. The second thing I would like to know in that letter is how many have been refused and why.
John Manzoni: Sure.
Stephen Phillips: That letter does not need to wait until March; it can come next week.
Q82 Deidre Brock: I want to return to a question I raised before because I am still not clear how you will ensure, as the boss—to use Mr Phillips’s term—that there is proper investigation of allegations from whistleblowers. People have put their personal lives and potentially their careers on the line to give information that some people would prefer was kept quiet. There is less chance of people doing that in the future if they see that the information is not dealt with and investigated properly.
John Manzoni: I completely agree with that. I think this is about the issue of leadership and the proper handling of such things. The policy, among other things, pushed significant sanctions for anybody who was seen to be taking adverse action against a whistleblower. Can I sit here and say that it isn’t happening? Not really. On the other hand, what we are collecting, for the first time, is actually what is happening in Departments. We will be able to have discussions about that through the HR networks and through the nominated officers network. That is something that we will be able to do.
Q83 Deidre Brock: Did you want to say something, Ms Stanley?
Alison Stanley: Yes. In addition to that, Departments have put in place governance going through to the internal risk and audit committees, part of which will be about what has been done with the information that comes up in these claims and whether the appropriate action has been taken. If that includes learning lessons and promulgating learning from that, the governance within the Departments will be accountable for ensuring that that happens.
Q84 Deidre Brock: Okay, but is that just happening individually within the Departments, or will the oversight remain with you, for example, Ms Stanley?
Alison Stanley: One of the purposes for the Departments gathering these data, as we have expressly stated, is that an auditor will see any systemic issues or trends that are happening across Departments, so we would look to see them and learn lessons, if the data actually show those trends and systemic issues.
Q85 Chair: Mr Manzoni, I have two more questions. First, do you think that whistleblowers can help to identify systemic problems in organisations and across Government?
John Manzoni: Yes, in any system.
Q86 Chair: I would have thought so, too. In relation to the police, the Home Office, through its new policy, has commissioned a single national policy for police forces on whistleblowing to ensure a clear and consistent approach. I will return to the question of arm’s length bodies. Plainly, there is a question of your capacity to monitor, and indeed you said that in your answer: “The Government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. The Government encourages ALBs and third sector providers to have effective whistleblowing policies, but it cannot commit to monitoring of providers and collection of data at a more local level”. One can see that that is a reasonable sentence, because it would involve a level of administration that would perhaps not be proportionate or effective, but none of that would stop you saying to all suppliers to Government, which are happy to take the taxpayers’ shilling, “Here are our model policies. If you wish to get Government contracts, you must adhere to these policies, or a version of them in which the differences are so vanishingly small that, basically, they are the same thing. Otherwise, we will contract with somebody else.” You would not need to commit to monitoring all that because you could have testing, auditing and an unannounced-visit approach to checking, couldn’t you?
John Manzoni: You could. One could imagine, however—this is why I am hesitant, and it is why I want to go and think about it; in fact, we have just been to, and are coming back from, a place where every particular policy has been promulgated through the procurement contract—that if you are not careful, you would have a Christmas tree of a procurement contract in which you basically tie up the suppliers to Government in knots with this thing or that thing, or a human rights issue or another issue, such as about apprenticeships. One has to be genuinely thoughtful about the interaction with commercial third parties when one starts promulgating individual policy objectives through the procurement contract. I think it has to be considered in the round. It is not immediately obvious that, just because this is the subject of today’s hearing, we should rush off and put this particular issue into the contracts. We need to think about them in the round, otherwise one gets into a Christmas tree problem. We have been there before.
Q87 Chair: I understand. There is an issue about the role of the centre and the things that the centre should and shouldn’t do, isn’t there? That was discussed at length by the House of Lords in its Committee report. I even wrote about it in my book. I didn’t know it at the time—I never lose an opportunity to plug my book—but I quote your great-great-great grandfather on page 1 of the introduction.
One of the things that we identified in our work was the degree to which the same old problems occur again and again and again. Surely, if central Government have a role—and there must be a series of appropriate roles—one is to identify and find solutions to long-running, hard, systemic issues, is it not?
John Manzoni: I agree.
Q88 Chair: Good.
My final question is about the Major Projects Authority—a great poster child as far as this Committee is concerned—which is merging with Infrastructure UK. This is a source of some concern to us and to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The NAO did an excellent study on the Major Projects Authority when it was much younger than it is now called Assurance for major projects. Marc van Grondelle from KPMG gave evidence to that inquiry.
The MPA has a job around independent project assurance; that is what it does. Infrastructure UK’s job, according to the description on its website is to work “on the UK’s long-term infrastructure priorities” and to secure “private sector investment”. Now, those two jobs are not simply different in degree; they are different in kind. The assurance job is very different from the securing of investment. By merging the two, are you not risking cutting off the flowering of something that was very valuable in central Government—namely, the work that was being done by the MPA?
John Manzoni: My response would be that the MPA, in addition to assurance, is tasked with—as with many other functions across Government—building the capabilities and skills across Government around major projects, such as the Major Projects Leadership Academy and all those things. In fact, in that regard, as it publishes guidance and sets standards, those things overlap with a function that IUK has today. For example, the project route map is a high-quality tool used in the infrastructure space that gets the front-end loading for an infrastructure project. It is an enormously helpful tool to build capability across Government. In that matter, these two areas are quite overlapping.
The trick, as we bring these things together, is to ensure that we get the bits that overlap, and we that get the benefit of that and do not merge the financing arm, for instance, of IUK into the MPA or anything like that. That is important. The additional benefit is that it is an example of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office working closely together, of which I am thoroughly in favour. Wherever we can find opportunities to do so, we should seize them.
Q89 Chair: Yes, we are in favour of them working together, but are you confident that the independent assurance function of the MPA—I should say that you mentioned the Major Projects Leadership Academy, which the Committee is visiting shortly—will be safeguarded?
John Manzoni: It is our duty to ensure that it is and that it is, indeed, strengthened.
Chair: Good. Mr Manzoni, I am sure that we will return to that subject because I know that the Comptroller and Auditor General is interested.
May I take this opportunity to thank you and Ms Stanley for coming today? You will know from our questions that we have a long-running interest in whistleblowing. There have been some shocking cases in the past and there is need for improvement. I am sure that we will return to the subject in the future. We note your undertaking to Mr Phillips to write to us by the end of March with the results of your labours. Until then, thank you very much.
Oral evidence: Making a whistleblowing policy work: progress update, HC 602 21