14 November 2022: Panel of Senior Civil Servants - B

Counsel initiated a panel discussion approach, firstly looking at the tendency for statutory bodies to be defensive and reluctant to apologise. Wales started by citing his NHS experiences, which was not a good start in front of the particular audience. His thoughts were apparently earnest but did not reflect in any way the experiences of infected blood folks. The UK continued the description of well-meaning processes which just came across as a further deflection from admitting that they were defensive and did avoid apologising at all costs. They can mention policies and strategies with clever names and highlight some odd-ball references such as the “green book technique”, but that does not change the facts of their failure. Scotland endorsed her colleagues but did acknowledge the nature of the political environment which did tend towards denial and avoidance. Covid got regular mentions as if that was an example of candour, not being defensive about decisions and not being resistant to apologise, which of course was palpable nonsense. The fact of there being Inquiries into Covid, and given what these big influencers are saying, it does not bode well for what these apparently independent and “without fear or favour” processes might produce. It was increasingly becoming an exercise in saying stuff which sounded good but was more waffled rhetoric than worthy response.

The suggestion of giving a Duty of Candour a legal basis was started off by Wales with reference to his NHS link. He seemed to be resisting a legal duty being established. The UK supported Wales by noting the legal standing of the Civil Service Code rather than answer the direct question of should Duty of Candour have a legal basis. It seemed like he was saying “No”, which was not a surprise. Northern Ireland had a different way of saying No. And Scotland agreed that it was about culture, systems, and a practice. So, that’s a No then ,too.

On the “lines to take” becoming entrenched and not reviewed, Scotland mentioned pressure of time and the amount of business and range of issues being covered by Ministers and their officials as preparatory excuses, but then went on to suggest that the checks and balances were becoming better. Wales supported the lines to take process as good practice, then reinforced the heavy workload excuse, suggested these lines were being reviewed, and basically said he didn’t see it as a problem. Really. Northern Ireland, as a new person, welcomed these lines being there, then talked about how it would be important to make sure these were reviewed. Re-stating the issue and painting a picture of some ideal world is not actually answering the question. Wales continued with the line to take about lines to take. He flirted with the possibility of a line becoming worn out and no longer useful, but then went back to their groupthink response of saying what it should be like and pretending it was.

Groupthink was the next topic. Counsel reviewed documents on challenging established thinking and inviting external scrutiny to present alternatives. She moved to the matter of screening advisers for any views they may have. It was seen as a matter of due diligence to check a person’s social media posts, entering their names into search engines, not just to weed out those who engage in hate speech, but even if they can be accused to espousing critical views about Government or policies. It seemed like the screening was a form of cancel culture. So much for red teaming then. The Cabinet Office UK guy seemed happy to explain away how their guidance was not being about avoiding alternative views. This writer cannot help but think this comes across as an example of a behaviour which is seen as inherently bad, but “It’s alright when we do it”. The Scottish person said she did not see this as a particular problem in Scotland, so did not see the need to have a due diligence framework. So, it’s not a problem. Oh really. Northern Ireland did not have a framework but did have its own particular circumstances. That is true.

The final general topic was about the observable experience of statutory bodies, such as the NHS, not learning from mistakes even when these are identified in a report such as an Inquiry. Northern Ireland kicked the response to this one off; while the two men started writing notes. She reeled off a range of things they had done, then ended up with a few, “We need to …”  statements of the obvious. Wales went straight to saying the right things about how important it was that things should be how they ought to be. He could even cite his own work to illustrate how much he knows about how things ought to be. Very nice. Currently, the Welsh Government is seeking to identify what it needs to learn from the Covid situation. Hmmm. Then the UK man used his notes to paint a picture of a wonderful world of jargon words and meetings to say them to each other; benchmarking; continuous improvement; reflective thinking; evaluation exercises; transparency; taskforces; programmes; gathering; etc. Scotland used the example of the investigation of the former First Minister. Enough said. They listed what they said were important matters to take into consideration on each of the questions they were asked. Anyone in the room could have done that.

The usual time for gathering core participant questions was truncated because the UK witness had other things to do. How disrespectful was that?