14 November 2022: Panel of Senior Civil Servants - A

Some of the most senior civil servants were collected together to appear as a panel before the Inquiry. In true civil servant style, there were expected to be “no surprises”. So, will there be any questions actually answered or will they use their skills to tip-toe through the questions while not really saying or committing to anything. It was established from the outset that none of the four panel members had any role in the matters being investigated by the Infected Blood Inquiry. All four of the witnesses report to and advise the most senior politicians in their respective governments. They also run the civil service in their nations. It was noted that as each person was giving their opening descriptions of their roles, the English chap was taking written notes, the Welsh guy was referring to papers on his desk, the Northern Irish woman did not move except when it was her turn, and the Scottish person mostly sat back because she had first crack at answering the initial questions.

The Scottish Civil Service Code was the first reviewed with a focus on the honesty and objectivity tenets. There was a description of the way the Code was used, for example, in training new staff. The way civil servants go about finding evidence upon which to base policy and practice was reviewed, including seeking sources, speaking with experts, challenging assertions to test any evidence were mentioned as ways to ensure quality information was being used by Ministers. The training of staff was more recently expanded to have some support and training for Ministers on using advice and evidence and working effectively with civil servants. The National Performance Framework was mentioned as a way of overcoming “groupthink”. It is aligned to the UN Development Goals. It is the way civil servants are trained to work in an overarching way. This writer recalls how this was based on a model from a US State Government, perhaps Alabama. There was also the “In the Service of Scotland” document with its Vision and its five core Values. These tools were seen as central to how citizens and Government work together effectively. The example was given of the creation of Social Security Scotland with a series of “Experience Panel” members. This writer was one of those involved in the “co-production” of developments in an attempt to get things right first time as far as possible through these Experience Panels and was able to confirm the openness and willingness to listen the researchers working on behalf of the Scottish Government were. The final introductory topic was the Whistleblowing Policy. Apparently, it is not used very often but internal surveys suggest people do know how they can use it if needed. There is a proprietary and ethics function in the Scottish Government.

For Wales, there is also a Code for the Civil Service. There was the concept of it being a UK Civil Service and so staff were seen as a collective who were working with one part of the UK. There is also a Ministerial Code that sits alongside it. As might be expected, because Scotland went first, many of the points raised were introduced with the phrase, “Like in Scotland …”. Like in Scotland, there have been moves to support Ministers both collectively and individually by ensuring they understand the Ministerial Code, the Nolan Principles, and the ways of working with civil servants. Again, as a mitigation against groupthink, there is a focus on “partnership working”. He mentioned how he was fairly new in his current role. He came from many years of public service, significantly the Welsh NHS. He used this past experience to give examples of public involvement in the same kind of co-production. There was reference to a recent anti-racism plan which reached across the range of civil society to make it more informed and real. Again, like in Scotland, there is a process for whistle-blowing within the civil service in Wales. Of the 40 cases, only three had highlighted matters of significant concern, but the process itself was part of the way to achieve resolution.

The Northern Ireland situation had to be contextualised due to the complexities and sensitivities of the political environment there. She was also seen to be a fairly new person in post. She came from an engineering background and is the first woman and the first non-civil servant to have the top role in Northern Ireland. This was seen as a development towards challenging potential groupthink, being a new person with no background in the civil service. A Board has been initiated which draws people from outside of Government. It covers matters such as ethics, culture, diversity, etc. The Northern Ireland Code for Civil Servants has a special focus on impartiality, not least since the witness reports to two political ministers/masters from different parties. There had been an Inquiry related to some of these matters (the RHI Inquiry, Renewable Heat Initiative) and the witness agreed to come back to the Inquiry with specific outcomes from that process. One part was the “Speaking Truth to Power” which was seen as important, especially if those in power might not want to hear certain truths spoken to them. Some of the relevant outcomes were problems with small policy teams without the capacity to make assessments and judgements from a fully informed position. It also led to changes to the Ministerial Code, and an update to the Code of Ethics. Work is still ongoing with unions and the audit section of Government. It did present new leadership challenges, not just for the NI Executive but also the independent Board previously referred to. Another aspect learned was a need for self-awareness within the NI Civil Service to seek external challenge to internal decision-making. This was seen as an organisational culture matter.

The England situation was immediately corrected to be properly a UK Government Civil Service. There is not a separate English focus. The Code is universal, and the national versions are only distinct as they are to apply to local circumstances. The Code is as described by the other three witnesses. Similarly, Ministers are also provided with internal (e.g. Cabinet Office) and external (e.g. Institute for Government) training and support as previously described. Leadership from Ministers and civil servants includes a willingness to challenge each other candidly, co-operate intensively, and be open-minded. He then went into an extended commentary which made reference to the notes he had carefully created during the comments of his colleagues. He mentioned that the Infected Blood Inquiry was one of 15 Public Inquiries being supported at the time. Counsel asked about the reference to “Red Teams”. This comes from a realm of military and intelligence sphere and involves a practice of arguing the opposite so as to test and strengthen the cases being made by Ministers and civil servants. Counsel referred to a Ministry of Defence document arising from the Chilcot Inquiry in reference to addressing groupthink issues. He said the internal challenge processes are embedded across the civil service, including in recruitment. This writer would suggest that this assertion is directly contrary to the history of the Contaminated Blood Scandal. If it is happening nowadays, that is a smokescreen to recognising the problem as a factor in the matters under investigation by the Inquiry. The issue of “memory illusion” was referenced, meaning the way people remember things the way they would like them to be as opposed to the reality. It would apply particularly to civil servants, especially those whose initial motivation was very influenced by a desire to make a positive difference in society.