Speaking truth to power – from the crossbenches

Recently retired civil servants are becoming increasingly vocal on leaving office. Lord O’Donnell started a trend – by advocating a policy focus on wellbeing rather than GDP the case for more technocratic institutions and taking a high profile role as a pundit on the potential aftermath of the election. But his successor as head of the civil service, the now Lord Kerslake, has taken speaking truth to power to a new level. Until February, the then Sir Bob was permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Now he tells us that he plans to make his maiden speech in the Lords criticising a policy being promoted by his old department – the new government’s approach to housing policy and in particular the Housing Association Right to Buy. The choice of subject is no surprise. Sir Bob came to DCLG from running the Homes and Communities Agency. He is a former local authority chief executive. And he is the new chair of the Peabody Trust. But the speed at which he has moved from adviser to critic is striking. When he was asked on the Today programme if he had been consulted about the proposal while still heading DCLG he made clear this was not coalition policy – and referred to protocols in place on Conservative only policies. The more interesting question though is what he would have done if he was still in his former role – and what his successor, Melanie Dawes, will do. Civil service advice is protected under freedom of information legislation to make sure it is full and frank. Would Sir Bob have made his reservations known in terms as categorical as he is now? We warned in our pre-election briefing notes that there is often a problem of early challenge when a permanent secretary is trying to convince a new secretary of state that the department and they are onside. By going public, Sir Bob has put potential official objections on the record. But his intervention also tosses a grenade in the direction of his successor for which she may not thank him. If a permanent secretary thinks a policy is poor value for money, he or she needs to request a direction – which then is reported to the Public Accounts Committee. As we have pointed out before, under the Coalition permanent secretaries were extremely reluctant to ask for directions – indeed it was not until the dying days of the government that the first direction was sought. And if she lets the policy off on a technicality that the issue is not a “VFM” question, it raises the question we have addressed in our earlier reports on policy making of whether we should expand the scope of directions to cover policy which is poorly conceived – for example based on weak evidence or badly designed – or reconsider the New Zealand option of publishing civil service advice (including their briefing to incoming ministers). And while his decision to go public will undoubtedly enhance the quality of the debate on housing policy, it also raises the question of whether the cooling off period between leaving government and coming out publicly against policy in an area for which they have had responsibility. The rules on the most senior civil servants taking up outside appointments call for a minimum three month period before taking on a new role and a two-year ban on lobbying on behalf of their new employer. But the issue here is less one of lobbying for public or private gain and more of the implications for the relations between ministers and their most senior advisers. Ministers may be wary about opening up to civil servants who can then leave and go on the attack – and use their former role to command public attention. In this case, however badly conceived the policy, longer-term relations between ministers and civil servants might be better served by a period of restraint.