Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who are due to speak, as I will not have an opportunity to thank them later; I promise to take careful note of everything that is said today. There is much evidence of polarisation across the country in recent years. This is not about politics or parties. I refer to something much more pervasive: a sense that the state itself, exemplified by our public services, is not there for all of us and that, irrespective of what a party’s manifesto says or what voters expect, nothing much changes. “They’re all the same”, is the mantra that is used to describe being let down. Here in Parliament, the only sameness that we all want is to do better by the country; that is why we are here. This may apply to our public servants, too, but it is not evidenced in public trust. The OECD’s most recent public trust survey, which was conducted across more than 30 countries, shows Britain falling behind on the trust table. Only 33% of us have moderate or high trust in government, a term that incorporates all public services. The OECD average of 40% is low, presumably as newer democracies are still rebuilding after authoritarianism. Another domestic survey, Two Britains, describes how divergent public servants’ views are from those of the public—something I have mentioned before. Currently, we have the largest number of public inquiries under way to establish wrongdoing. Too frequently, they find that public servants did not do their jobs properly, ostensibly because some internal value or culture led them to believe that appearing racist or Islamophobic had to be avoided at all costs, including the cost of justice for victims. The groupthink that distorts professionalism is what I call “progressive conformity”. It is a state where, in order to be accepted in the prevailing culture of an organisation, individuals do not speak their mind, are not sufficiently curious when they should be, or hold back, as they could be denied advancement if they had a different approach to the culture pervading that body. I saw this at the ECHR, which I chaired, on my appointment in 2020. Without breaching confidentiality, I can say that, within three months, I had to commission impartiality training across the whole organisation. There was enormous pushback on policy agreed by commissioners, and individual commissioners had to show great resilience for the board’s decisions to prevail. My experience is that there is a real and serious problem in delivery, as well as downstream from Parliament and policy-making, when it comes to accountability in our public services. I welcome the new review of the Civil Service and its much-needed focus on more effective delivery, which will, I hope, prevail. So far, so good. I am hopeful that what previous Prime Ministers have not achieved—a significant shift in capabilities, culture and outcomes—will transpire. We are told that the Cabinet Secretary is to be guided by an advisory group. Has that been established? Is its composition in place? It should be, for accountability and transparency. Dame Antonia Romeo needs to take a hard look at the Civil Service Code. Its core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality appear worthy but are irrelevant. Let me explain. Integrity requires, inter alia, accurate record-keeping, for accountability and transparency. However, we are told in written exchanges in the Commons that the records relating to the recently announced policy on anti-Muslim hostility, which will apply right across government, have been destroyed. So, evidence for a controversial policy has no audit trail in terms of who was involved and what was said. This smells, and I predict that it will end up in court at some point. Honesty requires that staff are not influenced by improper pressure from others. Yet we know about the reach of advocacy groups across government. An example is the influence of Stonewall. The charity Sex Matters has produced an entire dossier about EHRC staff improperly allowing Stonewall to influence decisions, without the knowledge of commissioners. This was of course before my time. Government departments themselves apply what is known as Stonewall law instead of equality law, which adds considerable costs to the public purse in settlements. The Cabinet Office does not appear to have changed its policy advice across government after the Supreme Court ruling of 17 months ago to protect single-sex spaces. Can the Minister confirm that its policy is still in breach of the Equality Act? A new code should emphasise that conformity with the law is not an optional extra but mandatory. Will the Minister restate that it applies to local government as well? Impartiality, as described in these values, is most contradictory. It is overly narrow, in that personal political views are not permissible but it is silent on non-political views. For me, all personal views should be impermissible if they influence decisions. Some of the most contested debates in recent times are not political in an ideological sense. Racism, sex-based rights and speech are not culture wars; they go to the heart of expectations of what is legal, fair and just. Those latter values—fairness and justice—are described as a requirement for staff in the code, yet they are not defined, so we have a situation where individuals are allowed to be the adjudicators of what is fair and just. It follows that some staff networks use their beliefs to advocate for certain causes, whether at home or abroad. Another problem is the code’s reach. It permits individual departments and related ALBs to adopt their own values alongside it. While the intention is that different service providers translate their own specific functional needs into their corporate ethos, this allows dilution of the overarching duties and ends in legal settlements in departments, without any apparent learning across government. For me, it is essential that the duty of impartiality should stand above the other three core values. It should be clarified, strengthened and made an overarching requirement across all public services, with stronger sanctions for disregarding it, irrespective of the independence of the NDPBs. Where tax­payer pounds are spent, high standards of behaviour should follow. Our tribunals are replete with cases of members of the police, the NHS and even government departments flouting impartiality and accountability for their actions. The problem is here and palpable and it needs resolving. This is an opportunity for a proper reset, so that the public can have confidence that they will be treated as they should be—impartially, objectively and, to use a word missing from the code, professionally—so that we can all be sure of getting the service we deserve from our public services.