0:00:00 > 0:00:06once a year for the State Opening of Parliament they still are!
0:00:29 > 0:00:33My lord, I beg leave to ask a question of which I have given
0:00:33 > 0:00:38private notice. It is as follows, to ask her Majesty's government to ask
0:00:38 > 0:00:44what steps they are taking to defend civil servants from criticism
0:00:44 > 0:00:50regarding their objectivity and impartiality?My Lords, the
0:00:50 > 0:00:56ministerial code says that, I quote, ministers must uphold the political
0:00:56 > 0:01:00impartiality of the civil service. Our Civil Service is envied the
0:01:00 > 0:01:04world over and as the Home Secretary said, has the complete confidence of
0:01:04 > 0:01:09the government. The Constitutional reform and governance act enshrined
0:01:09 > 0:01:15in legislation, the core principles and values of the civil service
0:01:15 > 0:01:19which included impartiality, integrity and objectivity. These
0:01:19 > 0:01:24values are set out in the civil service code which also states civil
0:01:24 > 0:01:28servants must not knowingly mislead ministers, Parliament or others and
0:01:28 > 0:01:33I do not believe they do.My Lords, I am grateful to the noble lord for
0:01:33 > 0:01:38that answer and he more than anyone has upheld the ministerial code
0:01:38 > 0:01:44during a very long and distinguished ministerial career. But, my Lords,
0:01:44 > 0:01:48in the last few days we have had assertions made by both ministers
0:01:48 > 0:01:52and members of Parliament that officials are deliberately
0:01:52 > 0:01:57frustrating Brexit or fiddling the figures. Those civil servants cannot
0:01:57 > 0:02:04defend themselves in public. Does the noble lord agree that officials
0:02:04 > 0:02:10must have confidence in being able to provide robust and dispassionate
0:02:10 > 0:02:15advice without fear of intimidation? My Lords, given that the Downing
0:02:15 > 0:02:20Street and Number ten and the Prime Minister have failed to slap down
0:02:20 > 0:02:24those ministers and those MPs in their own party who have made these
0:02:24 > 0:02:29disgraceful slurs, is it too much to ask for the Prime Minister finally
0:02:29 > 0:02:38to show some leadership?So far as the ministers are concerned, and I
0:02:38 > 0:02:41answer for ministers, not for backbench members of Parliament, the
0:02:41 > 0:02:46minister concerned made a fulsome apology in another place on February
0:02:46 > 0:02:50the 2nd. He said, I accept that I should have corrected or dismissed
0:02:50 > 0:02:57the premises and I have apologised to Mr Charles Grant, an honest and
0:02:57 > 0:03:02trustworthy man, and as I have put on record I have the highest regard
0:03:02 > 0:03:05for our hard-working civil servants and I am grateful for this
0:03:05 > 0:03:09opportunity to correct the record and apologise to the House. The
0:03:09 > 0:03:14noble lord generously referred to my experience and I think I have done
0:03:14 > 0:03:23on aunt of work over more than 20 years with many discontinuities. I
0:03:23 > 0:03:27have never had occasion to question the impartiality or the objectivity
0:03:27 > 0:03:33of civil servants. They have spoken and said things quite often that I
0:03:33 > 0:03:38did not want to hear, but I would never accuse them of some of the
0:03:38 > 0:03:41accusations that have recently been levied against them. I think we
0:03:41 > 0:03:49should be proud of our Civil Service and I reject the smears made against
0:03:49 > 0:03:56them.My Lords will recognise this is not just a British issue. The
0:03:56 > 0:03:59current attack on the FBI in the United States raises rather similar
0:03:59 > 0:04:06issues. Can the Minister assure us publicly that when we say civil
0:04:06 > 0:04:10servants are expected to be impartial they are not expected to
0:04:10 > 0:04:19be impartial between evidence and supposition? When ministers prefer
0:04:19 > 0:04:23faith or fantasy to evidence, civil servants have the right to point out
0:04:23 > 0:04:28that good governors does depend on pay attention to the evidence
0:04:28 > 0:04:34whenever one can find it?The noble lord is absolutely right and I wait
0:04:34 > 0:04:39a moment ago the civil service code. Part of that is objectivity.
0:04:39 > 0:04:45Objectivity is basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis
0:04:45 > 0:04:48of the evidence. I think it is the standard to which our Civil Service
0:04:48 > 0:04:55is renowned.Could I ask my noble friend's honest opinion? He will be
0:04:55 > 0:05:01familiar with this document, the Treasury analysis of May 2016
0:05:01 > 0:05:07forecasting a complete car mats collapse of the British economy if
0:05:07 > 0:05:15we were to leave the EU. It turns out to be untrue in reality. My
0:05:15 > 0:05:19noble friend has praised the objectivity of friends who produce
0:05:19 > 0:05:22government statistics. If I continued to criticise the mandarins
0:05:22 > 0:05:25and the ministers who approved the statistics in this document does
0:05:25 > 0:05:35that make me a snake oil salesman or a 1930s Nazi or a bit of both?My
0:05:35 > 0:05:38noble friend should distinguish between criticisms of ministers and
0:05:38 > 0:05:44criticisms of civil servants. The document that he has in his hand was
0:05:44 > 0:05:48publicly presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time and any
0:05:48 > 0:05:54criticism should be directly directed at the politicians who
0:05:54 > 0:05:59presented it. I think it was also endorsed by the Lords dialling at
0:05:59 > 0:06:02the time. They are the ones who should be criticise rather than the
0:06:02 > 0:06:08civil servants.The minister said that the Minister has already
0:06:08 > 0:06:15apologised. Does that mean now a civil servant can break the code and
0:06:15 > 0:06:20not face any sanction if he by advisers later?That would be a
0:06:20 > 0:06:25matter for the civil service code. There are penalties levied against
0:06:25 > 0:06:30civil servants who break the code, depending on the severity of the
0:06:30 > 0:06:35offence. They could lose their job, as has happened in some cases. Or
0:06:35 > 0:06:39they can apologise. In this case the Minister has apologised, he has
0:06:39 > 0:06:43explained the circumstances and he had no reason to believe that what
0:06:43 > 0:06:48was being said at the time was not true. When he discovered it was not
0:06:48 > 0:06:53true at the first opportunity he came to the House and apologise.I
0:06:53 > 0:06:57Lords, I had the pleasure of working with the Minister in his many guises
0:06:57 > 0:07:02and if ever there was a minister who lived by the code he just talked
0:07:02 > 0:07:06about it is himself. Does the Minister believed that those making
0:07:06 > 0:07:11allegations without supporting evidence against serving civil
0:07:11 > 0:07:22servants who will not respond are undertaking a form of bullying? That
0:07:22 > 0:07:26to be honest is something which diminishes those making the attack,
0:07:26 > 0:07:37but more importantly damages our democracy.Well... Whether the
0:07:37 > 0:07:40accusations made in the House of Commons last week constitute
0:07:40 > 0:07:44bullying I am not quite so sure. I think they were ill-advised given
0:07:44 > 0:07:51that the evidence did not stack up the accusations that were made. But
0:07:51 > 0:07:56I agree with what the noble lord said in his final remarks, that the
0:07:56 > 0:08:00people who come out of it worse are those who make the accusations
0:08:00 > 0:08:11rather than those that they were levied against.
0:08:11 > 0:08:15Ministers who impugn the impartiality and good faith of our
0:08:15 > 0:08:18civil servants are behaving very much as President Trump does in the
0:08:18 > 0:08:23United States with regards to the FBI.I am not sure I want to open up
0:08:23 > 0:08:34a fresh front! But President Trump I hope will read...
0:08:34 > 0:08:41LAUGHTER What my Lord has just said.
0:08:41 > 0:08:47Is it not the case that every sensible person before starting a
0:08:47 > 0:08:51business will always produce a business plan and the responsible
0:08:51 > 0:08:55and sensible governments must engage in cost benefit analysis and policy
0:08:55 > 0:08:59analysis and if we gave up those habits it would be deeply damaging
0:08:59 > 0:09:03to the preacher of the country. That is the logic some of these people
0:09:03 > 0:09:08are trying to drive us to. We should not have any experts, studies or
0:09:08 > 0:09:14analysis at all.I have not seen the particular documents that are the
0:09:14 > 0:09:18object of this exchange, but I understand they were looking at a
0:09:18 > 0:09:22number of post-Brexit scenarios from an economic point of view, but I
0:09:22 > 0:09:26also understand that the Prime Minister subsequently said they were
0:09:26 > 0:09:29looking at off the shelf options and the Prime Minister has made it clear
0:09:29 > 0:09:34that she is not looking at off-the-shelf options.Is my friend
0:09:34 > 0:09:43the Minister aware that every political generation experiences are
0:09:43 > 0:09:51pleas of this question. Hugh Dalton was given unpalatable advice, but
0:09:51 > 0:10:01surely that is what we pay them for. It would be pointless to have a
0:10:01 > 0:10:05politicised civil service which would be ruinous to this country.I
0:10:05 > 0:10:09agree, it is the job of civil servants to bring to ministers
0:10:09 > 0:10:12General Hux attention the consequences of their policies, to
0:10:12 > 0:10:17argue forcibly against them if they believe they are misguided. Once the
0:10:17 > 0:10:22decision has been taken they have to deliver them as best as they can. My
0:10:22 > 0:10:27experience is that is exactly what they have done.Would my noble
0:10:27 > 0:10:37friend agree that the remarks made in the debate ten days ago in this
0:10:37 > 0:10:43house, disparaging remarks were made by a member of the opposite front
0:10:43 > 0:10:47bench impugning the integrity of the civil servants in our library
0:10:47 > 0:10:53because she did not agree with the brief that they produced. I went
0:10:53 > 0:10:56straight to the library and apologise on behalf of of the House
0:10:56 > 0:11:00because I said no one else would agree with that.I hope my noble
0:11:00 > 0:11:06friend will understand if I pass on that one, not having been privy
0:11:06 > 0:11:11either to the accusations that were made or indeed the evidence. But I
0:11:11 > 0:11:14am sure my noble friend did what he felt was right in defending the
0:11:14 > 0:11:19library.