This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/mar/10/cabinet-secretary-mark-sedwill-to-be-questioned-by-mps-about-work-of-government-and-priti-patel-live-news

The article has changed 18 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill to be questioned by MPs about work of government and Priti Patel - live news Cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill to be questioned by MPs about work of government and Priti Patel - live news
(32 minutes later)
Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happenRolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen
In the Commons Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, asks if government will lift the bureaucratic requirements on GPs so that they have more time to focus on coronavirus.
Jo Churchill, the health minister who is replying, says that she is considering this.
The PACAC hearing has not quite finished, but Sir Mark Sedwill has managed to get through it so far without setting off many ripples across the pond of news.
In the House of Commons chamber Matt Hancock, the health secretary, has just started taking health questions.
In response to a question about public health grants to councils, he said that local authorities could plan with confidence on the basis that their budgets could be going up in real terms, and that a full announcement would be made shortly.
Q: The government wants to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. But under the Act, a committee is due to be set up this summer to review its operation. Will that still go ahead?
Sedwill says in one sense this answer to this is the same as the answer on the democracy commission. (See 11.16am.) Options are being offered to ministers. The act could be repealed wholesale. Or non-controversial parts of it could be retained, he says.
Q: Is there a cut-off point when you have to decide whether or not to have the committee reviewing the act?
Sedwill says he thinks that would have to be set up between June and November. He says it has not been decided yet what would happen.
Q: Do you think it is best just to revert to the royal prerogative if the act is repealed?
Sedwill says it is possible. But the question is whether the royal prerogative (ie, the PM’s power to decide the date of a general election) would resume automatically if the FTPA were repealed, or whether that would have to be actively restored, has yet to be decided.
He says elements of the FTPA were good. It gave clarity about the length of a parliament. But other aspects of it did not work well, as people discovered last year.
Q: Can you tell us what the government’s democracy commission will involve?
Sedwill says officials have been working on options, but ministers have not taken the final decisions yet, he says.
Manzoni says there were 800 people working for the Department for Existing the European Union when it closed.
He says they moved to the Cabinet Office initially.
Then around 100 went to the Foreign Office. Large numbers of staff also went to the business department and to HMRC, he says.
And some of them joined David Frost’s negotiating team.
Sedwill says some of the former DExEU staff have been working on coronavirus, because they were already working on contingency planning.
Q: Is there any precedent for all ministers being shared between two departments (as they are now, between the Foreign Office and DfID)?Q: Is there any precedent for all ministers being shared between two departments (as they are now, between the Foreign Office and DfID)?
Sedwill says he is not aware of one. But he says in the past some ministers served the Foreign Office and DfID.Sedwill says he is not aware of one. But he says in the past some ministers served the Foreign Office and DfID.
Q: We now have joint ministers serving the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. To whom are their officials accountable?Q: We now have joint ministers serving the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. To whom are their officials accountable?
To both departments, Sedwill says. He says the costs are shared out.To both departments, Sedwill says. He says the costs are shared out.
Q: If someone had expressed support for jihadis online, would they be acceptable?Q: If someone had expressed support for jihadis online, would they be acceptable?
Sedwill says of course in those circumstances security vetting would be removed.Sedwill says of course in those circumstances security vetting would be removed.
He says he does not want to comment on Andrew Sabisky, on his views or on the vetting that he received.He says he does not want to comment on Andrew Sabisky, on his views or on the vetting that he received.
Q: Was Andrew Sabisky a spad or a contractor?Q: Was Andrew Sabisky a spad or a contractor?
Sedwill says he was a contractor. He was on a day rate, Sedwill thinks.Sedwill says he was a contractor. He was on a day rate, Sedwill thinks.
He says it is not unusual for contractors to be used.He says it is not unusual for contractors to be used.
Q: Did the PM approve his appointment?Q: Did the PM approve his appointment?
Sedwill says the PM does not approve contractors.Sedwill says the PM does not approve contractors.
Q: Was Sabisky vetted?Q: Was Sabisky vetted?
Sedwill says it is normal for people to be vetted. In certain cases this is not necessary. But he says in this case he thinks security clearance was done.Sedwill says it is normal for people to be vetted. In certain cases this is not necessary. But he says in this case he thinks security clearance was done.
He says Sabisky would only have been at meeting for which he had appropriate security clearance.He says Sabisky would only have been at meeting for which he had appropriate security clearance.
Q: What vetting process did Sabisky go through with regard to security?Q: What vetting process did Sabisky go through with regard to security?
Sedwill says he will write to the committee about this.Sedwill says he will write to the committee about this.
There are different checks he says: a basic security check; a counter-terrorism check; a more advanced security clearance; and developed vetting, which used to be called positive vetting, which is the highest check, used for people with access to security matters.There are different checks he says: a basic security check; a counter-terrorism check; a more advanced security clearance; and developed vetting, which used to be called positive vetting, which is the highest check, used for people with access to security matters.
Sedwill says he does not want to elaborate on what developed vetting involves.Sedwill says he does not want to elaborate on what developed vetting involves.
A few minutes later William Wragg, the committee chair, says he has just found the developed vetting form online.A few minutes later William Wragg, the committee chair, says he has just found the developed vetting form online.
Sedwill says the form may be online, but he does not want to say what background checks are involved.Sedwill says the form may be online, but he does not want to say what background checks are involved.
Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle goes next.Labour’s Lloyd Russell-Moyle goes next.
Q: The Conservative spad website says the No 10 communications director would be ultimately responsible for all hiring decisions. Is that correct? Or is the PM ultimately in charge?Q: The Conservative spad website says the No 10 communications director would be ultimately responsible for all hiring decisions. Is that correct? Or is the PM ultimately in charge?
Sedwill says the website is not a matter for him.Sedwill says the website is not a matter for him.
Q: Will the government benefit from having more weirdos and misfits in government?Q: Will the government benefit from having more weirdos and misfits in government?
Sedwill says he likes Gus O’Donnell’s take on this; O’Donnell, a former cabinet secretary, said anyone willing to work long hours for less money than they would get elsewhere could be considered a weirdo or a misfit.Sedwill says he likes Gus O’Donnell’s take on this; O’Donnell, a former cabinet secretary, said anyone willing to work long hours for less money than they would get elsewhere could be considered a weirdo or a misfit.
Sedwill says he would not necessarily use these terms. But he supports the idea of trying to bring in new people into government who might have something to contribute.Sedwill says he would not necessarily use these terms. But he supports the idea of trying to bring in new people into government who might have something to contribute.
Sedwill says that in principle he approves of Dominic Cummings’ desire to bring more ‘weirdos and misfits’ into government.Sedwill says that in principle he approves of Dominic Cummings’ desire to bring more ‘weirdos and misfits’ into government.
Q: A new spad website has been set up. How is that being handled?Q: A new spad website has been set up. How is that being handled?
Sedwill says that is nothing to do with him. That is a Conservative party matter. He says it is up to politicians to identify advisers they might want to recruit.Sedwill says that is nothing to do with him. That is a Conservative party matter. He says it is up to politicians to identify advisers they might want to recruit.
Q: So who pays for it?Q: So who pays for it?
The Conservative party, says Sedwill.The Conservative party, says Sedwill.
He says Jack Straw, who he used to work for, ran a recruitment process when he was looking for special advisers.He says Jack Straw, who he used to work for, ran a recruitment process when he was looking for special advisers.
He says after ministers have identified people they want to hire, the civil service then brings them into the system.He says after ministers have identified people they want to hire, the civil service then brings them into the system.
Q: Do you decide salaries?Q: Do you decide salaries?
Sedwill says that is a government minister. Various rules apply.Sedwill says that is a government minister. Various rules apply.
Sedwill says anyone operating on behalf of the PM has to operate with his authority, and ultimately with his approval.Sedwill says anyone operating on behalf of the PM has to operate with his authority, and ultimately with his approval.
And he says the PM is the ultimate arbiter of the ministerial code. He says he can only advise the PM on this.And he says the PM is the ultimate arbiter of the ministerial code. He says he can only advise the PM on this.
Q: Can you tell us about the new HR adviser being appointed to oversee special advisers (Spads)?
Sedwill says the government has been trying to provide more professional HR support to spads.
He says spads serve with the consent of the PM. If that consent is withdrawn, statutory employment rights apply.
Q: When is the review of spads’ employment terms going to end?
Sedwill says it is not a “capital R” review.
Q: Do spads join a trade union?
Sedwill says they can. Some join the First Division Association.
Q: How will ones like the Sonia Khan incident be resolved in future?
Sedwill says he cannot discuss this specific case.
But he says any special adviser who loses their job has statutory employment rights.
Q: Does the ministerial code need to be rewritten?
Sedwill says spads are part of collective government, but normally they have a close relationship with their minister too.
Q: There has been media speculation that you could not focus properly on the problems in the Home Office because of your national security role?
Sedwill says he was on leave some of the time during this period. He would have been on leave even if he had not been national security adviser. But he was in touch constantly anyway.
He says the composition of the job has changed in the past, and will change again in the future.
David Mundell, the Tory former Scottish secretary, is asking questions now.
Q: There has been a lot of criticism of your “double jobbing” (Sedwill being national security adviser and cabinet secretary). How do you respond to that?
Sedwill says this is not a new issue. In the past the cabinet secretary was also running the civil service, doing the job that John Manzoni does.
He says, as cabinet secretary and national security adviser, his responsibilities overlap with the PM’s.
He says before 2010 there was no national security adviser. Before 2010 the cabinet secretary also oversaw national security.
Q: Is there anything that the permanent secretary to the Scottish government does not have to report to you?
Yes, says Sedwill. He says he would not expect the Scottish government’s permanent secretary to tell him about Scottish government policy.
Q: If there was a problem in devolved administrations, would the permanent secretary come to you?
Sedwill says the cabinet secretary could become involved.
Q: Has the permanent secretary in the Scottish or Welsh government ever had to report misbehaviour by a first minister to you?
Sedwill says there is a limit to what he can say on this case. But he says the system as he described (that ultimately a complaint would be brought to him) has applied.
Q: Why is the Northern Ireland civil service considered a separate service, but not the Scottish and Welsh civil service?
Sedwill says the Northern Ireland civil service is separate because the Irish civil service was separate before 1922. That separation continued after 1922, he says. But he says they try to bind the Northern Ireland civil service into the GB one, so that they have access to the same talent pool.
Q: Do permanent secretaries still have weekly meetings?
Yes, says Sedwill.
Q: And government policy is discussed there?
Yes, says Sedwill. They also talk about civil service capabilities.
Q: Do the permanent secretaries of the Scottish and Welsh government attend?
Normally yes, says Sedwill. But he says that was not the case during the 2014 referendum (when the UK government and the Scottish government were at odds over independence).
Sedwill says these meetings are normally information sharing meeting.
Sedwill says he is the line manager for the head of the civil service for the Scottish government and the Welsh government.
But he says, in that situation, the first minister is equivalent to a cabinet minister, who is expected to get on with the permanent secretary of their government, but also equivalent to the UK PM, in that they have the final say.
Q: So if the Scottish government managed to stop Brexit, you would have given the permanent secretary of the Scottish government five stars for implementing Scottish government policy.
Sedwill says (jokes?) that that would depend on whether or not the Scottish government’s civil service deserved the credit.
Q: Would you describe yourself as the line manager for permanent secretaries?
Sedwill says he is their line manager. He conducts annual performance appraisals.
He says he has had to have a conversation where someone’s performance was “off the pace”.
Sedwill says he has had to tell permanent secretaries to improve their performance.
The SNP MP Ronnie Cowan asks about Sir Philip Rutnam’s accusations against Priti Patel.
Sedwill says there is a limit to what he can say. He says Rutnam has threatened legal action, although he has not initiated that yet.
Q: But where could someone like Rutnam go with a complaint like that.
Sedwill says, speaking generally, a permanent secretary could take it to him. He might take it up with the PM.
Q: Have you ever warned a PM before appointing someone to cabinet?
Sedwill says his advice to the PM. But before cabinet appointments are made, he gives advice, based on what he knows.
Q: Would that be a private matter if you were asked about that at an employment tribunal?
Sedwill says he would have to take legal advice on that. But he would not expect to have to disclose that.
Sedwill indicates that he would not want to tell an employment tribunal about any advice be gave to the PM before he appointed Priti Patel as home secretary.
Sedwill says he regards the resignation of Rutnam as a “regrettable incident”.
But he says he does not see the need for “further regulations” governing the relationship between permanent secretaries and cabinet minister. In most cases, the status quo works, he argues.
Sedwill says he does not see the case for new rules governing official/ministerial relations in the light of Philip Rutnam’s resignation.