Lord Sedwill: Lord Speaker's Corner

Watch now

In this episode

‘It comes down in the end to the quality of the individual and then they'll get the best out of the best civil servants.’

In this episode, Lord Sedwill shares his perspectives on the relationship between ministers and officials, reforming the Civil Service and what his advice would be for the new Cabinet Secretary.

‘There was a period which is now coming towards an end, a decade when the UK became quite introspective’

A former diplomat, including Nato representative and UK Ambassador to Afghanistan, Lord Sedwill also shares his perspectives on the UK’s changing role internationally, plus its need to actively engage the BRIC countries.

‘Diplomacy is not about talking to your friends. Diplomacy is about talking to your adversaries and seeing if you can find a way of dealing with the situation if possible without conflict.’

Lord Sedwill also speaks about working in some of most intense regions for the Foreign Office including Egypt and Iraq, where once he was held at gunpoint by a young man as he was trying to gain access to one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces as a UN Weapons Inspector. 

‘This youngster, he was probably only 16 or 17. He wasn't scared of us, he was scared of getting it wrong and what would happen to him or his family. And I remember having to calm the situation down… I intervened and just used my Arabic and tried to calm the situation down. And that's probably the closest I ever came to being shot directly by someone where there was absolutely no protection.’

Listen now

• Listen online
• Apple podcasts
• Spotify
• See a full list of podcast platforms

Other episodes

• See a full list of episodes

Transcript

Lord Speaker:

Lord Sedwill, Mark - welcome to the Lord Speaker's podcast. Delighted to have you. Can we start with your early life?

Lord Sedwill:

Of course. So I grew up in a very ordinary family. My father was in the frozen food business. My mother was a doctor's secretary. Went to the village school. I think I was one of the first people to go to the village school who wasn't actually born in the village. It was a really small place in South Lincolnshire. Passed the 11 plus, probably the most important exam I ever passed. Went to the grammar school in the local town, great state grammar school, still there, bigger now with a really good record of success. And then I was the first person in my immediate family to go to university, went to St. Andrews on the east coast of Scotland and then onto Oxford for a Masters after that.

Lord Speaker:

And you studied economics at St. Andrews-

Lord Sedwill:

That's right.

Lord Speaker:

... with a BSc, then an MPhil as a result. Was your course for the Civil Service predetermined?

Lord Sedwill:

I don't think so, actually. I didn't know what I was going to do. I joined the Royal Marines Reserves while I was at St. Andrews and actually was thinking of a military career, I guess public service of some kind was pretty likely. But then I picked up an opportunity to go into the diplomatic service. I'd done the milk round and I was offered a chance to do a job in the City, which obviously paid a lot more, but I just decided that that public service was for me. And in particular, I was really keen to be a diplomat. And so that's where I went.

Lord Speaker:

And you joined the Civil Service in 1989-

Lord Sedwill:

That's right.

Lord Speaker:

... when Lord Butler, who's in the House and whom I've interviewed was the Cabinet Secretary?

Lord Sedwill:

That's right.

Lord Speaker:

What was it like at that time? There seemed to me to be a bit more of an austere environment there.

Lord Sedwill:

I think that's right. And I remember actually Robin Butler, Lord Butler coming to Oxford to give a seminar when I was a student there. I've teased him a bit about it since, when he talked about the nature of power and so on. But I think it was, and it was more austere. It was certainly more traditional. Yes, Minister was still quite fresh in those days. Actually, it's quite fresh now because-

Lord Speaker:

It's still very relevant.

Lord Sedwill:

... it still applies. But I remember for example, when I first went to see a fairly senior member of the diplomatic staff, you didn't use first names and you had to put your jacket on as a young official. And so it was a lot more formal in those days. But fundamentally, the values and the people were, I guess, much the same.

Lord Speaker:

What do you think was the most important improvement from that time to now?

Lord Sedwill:

Diversity. So it was very white, very middle class, more male in those years. And I think what we've seen over my career really, and there's still work to do, but over my career is a much greater injection of diversity, of talent from different backgrounds. Obviously we have many more women in senior positions now than was the case then. But also people from ethnic minorities from a range of different backgrounds and also with different life experiences. And I think that is really important in the public service as a whole, that we reflect the public that we are there to serve.

Lord Speaker:

The relationship between ministers and civil servants has come in for criticism today. Some people saying it's woke. I don't share that opinion at all because a lot of the people I've met, civil servants are the best on that. I get a feeling that civil servants like direction and if they get direction and they have a minister who has a view with the way forward and allows challenge, that's the best relationship with that. But since your early time to now, particularly with the introduction of SpAds, how's it changed?

Lord Sedwill:

So I think that point you just made is absolutely right. The underlying joke in Yes, Minister is somehow the senior Civil Service have their own policy they're pursuing, and what they want is a weak minister that they can sort of run rings around. And actually that's just not true. As you say, what actually the best civil servants really appreciate is strong ministers who give them clear direction, who have a strong voice in Cabinet, who can communicate the policy well, who can handle Parliament and the public, and who focus on the big issues and are decisive. And I know there are ministers in Labour governments, in Conservative governments who are good at that and ministers who aren't. It comes down in the end to the quality of the individual and then they'll get the best out of the best civil servants.

And usually what one finds is the strongest ministers are the ones who actually tend to be the most complementary about their officials. And it's the weaker ministers who will sometimes use their officials as an alibi. It's really simple. Strong ministers get the best out of them. There are more SpAds, more special advisers around now than there were when I was a young civil servant. So actually, I think generally it's a good thing. Most SpAds are actually really dedicated public servants in their own way. It enables the Civil Service to remain out of the political hurly-burly, if SpAds are clearly responsible for that, responsible for ministers when they're giving their party conference speeches, all the rest of it.

And actually, I always favoured one of the innovations that Francis Maude sought to introduce when he was the minister in the Cabinet Office back in the coalition government, which is more specialist advisers coming in, not political SpAds, but people with deep specialist expertise. When I was in the private office to two foreign secretaries, Robin Cook and Jack Straw, actually one of the SpAds there was actually someone who had deep diplomatic experience in the UN and he really added a different perspective that I felt was really valuable.

Lord Speaker:

And I think that was a really important time, was it not? Because the Iraq war took place at that time.

Lord Sedwill:

That's right.

Lord Speaker:

And the need for almost constant engagement with the UN was there for the foreign secretaries.

Lord Sedwill:

Exactly.

Lord Speaker:

Give us an idea of how that felt.

Lord Sedwill:

It was one of the most intense periods immediately after, a couple of years after 9/11 when I was in the private office, in the foreign secretary's private office and then I then went overseas. And of course my subsequent career was very much shaped by that event in that I spent much of my time then in South Asia, ending up in Afghanistan. I think running into the Iraq war. I think what was really striking, and sometimes there's a sort of false memory about this, as though the British government made the decision about whether there was going to be an invasion of Iraq. And of course we didn't. That decision was taken by George W. Bush and the US administration. And the only decision for the Blair government, for Tony Blair as Prime Minister and his Cabinet, was were we going to participate or not?

We were already participating in Afghanistan. Were we going to go along with them or not? And I think obviously you had to make the case on its merits, but fundamentally the choice was were we going to support the US actively, or as a previous government during the Vietnam War had done - the Wilson government - stand aside. And I felt that argument somewhat got lost. And actually the argument became about whether the war itself in Iraq, the invasion of Iraq itself was right or wrong, obviously an important argument. But actually for the UK, in some ways the more important question was actually our alliance with the United States and how we were going to manage that.

Lord Speaker:

But you have a vast diplomatic experience posted in many of the most intense areas of the world.

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah. They never sent me to Paris or Rome, I'm afraid.

Lord Speaker:

So you went to Egypt, Afghanistan-

Lord Sedwill:

That's right.

Lord Speaker:

... Pakistan and Iraq, now I don't think that would be the top list for tourists.

Lord Sedwill:

No.

Lord Speaker:

But it must have been a wealth of experience for you and a different perspective.

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah, I mean I really relished the opportunity to serve in countries of that kind. I learnt Arabic fairly early on in my career and then went on to Egypt and as you say, the first half of my career mostly spent in the Middle East and then went on to South Asia, to Pakistan and Afghanistan thereafter. I think what is difficult to explain to people who haven't been in those countries is the intensity of the experience that you have there. And actually the opportunity, even as a relatively junior diplomat to be active, you aren't just another person in a suit in a big western city. You can be out on the ground discovering what's going on, trying to represent your government's views.

So in my first posting in Egypt, there was a terrorist attack on British tourists, and there were only a handful of us around, and even smaller number who spoke Arabic, only a couple of junior diplomats who spoke Arabic - the ambassador did. And so it was a case, okay, which one of the two of us was going to head off onto the ground to try and deal with this terrorist attack on the ground and which one was going to stay in Cairo and present and handle that and support the ambassador at that end. So I had that opportunity to be right at the sharp end from my early days. And of course then culminating in being ambassador and the Nato rep in Afghanistan 25 years later.

Lord Speaker:

In those countries, as a diplomat, do you get into the mindset of the politicians in the country and indeed to society there? And how important is that for a diplomat?

Lord Sedwill:

It's absolutely vital. I mean, in the end, our job of course is to represent the UK but we can only do that effectively, particularly in countries that have a very different culture, different political culture and system, if we can get under the skin of that country and really understand their perspective and so on. So I used to joke when I was in Afghanistan that I spent quite a lot of my time with warlords, and these were people who had either done directly or were responsible for some terrible acts of violence, particularly during the civil wars in Afghanistan. What I'd remind people is none of us had ever been in that situation. What would we do if we were faced with the kind of challenges and choices that they had to make to protect their family, to protect their tribe, to protect their interests?

And might we in those circumstances, find ourselves making similar decisions and being responsible for some terrible acts of violence? You have to remember the circumstances within which people are operating. And of course, all of the countries in which I served pretty much, were Muslim majority countries, Afghanistan is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. And again, really understanding how important that is, it isn't separated as it is in the UK. It's a deeply embedded part of political life, and one has to try and understand those kind of perspectives as well. So it's absolutely vital. The other point I'd make is diplomacy is not about talking to your friends. Diplomacy is about talking to your adversaries and seeing if you can find a way of dealing with the situation if possible without conflict.

Lord Speaker:

The UK has been known as having been an influential country in terms of soft power. Does that still maintain and how important is that soft power?

Lord Sedwill:

I think it's really important. It's a big part of this country's offer. I think the UK had, I used to say this when I was the National Security Adviser, had an almost unique blend of hard and soft power, one of the biggest defence budgets in the world, really significant high quality armed forces, great intelligence, etc. But also one of the largest aid budgets, the soft power of the English language, the BBC World Service, et cetera. And so while other countries essentially had one or other of these assets available to them, we had an almost unique cocktail blend of these assets. And I think it's really important for the UK that we are able to deploy soft power alongside hard power and smart power and so on, because that essentially has a multiplier effect.

Now, I have to be honest that there was a period which is now coming towards an end, a decade when the UK became quite introspective, the two referendums, the 2014 referendum, the 2016 referendum, the rest of the world was somewhat puzzled by why we were essentially reflecting on our own essentially national identity, because they'd always just assumed that was a settled matter for the UK. And the truth is, we were less influential during that period because the rest of the world perceived we were talking to ourselves and not to them about their issues. We're coming out of that now, but it's really important that if we're going to shape the world in which we live, this country is a very open economy and society that we deploy that hard power, the soft power, the smart power, the influence, et cetera, in supporting our values and of course our national interest.

Lord Speaker:

Given that we're out of Europe at the moment, what advice would you have for us in terms of utilising the soft power that the UK has and engaging with European countries?

Lord Sedwill:

Well, we're in the end, as the Ukraine war has taught us, if we had forgotten this lesson, although we're outside the EU, of course, we're still within Nato, we're a very important player within the European pillar of Nato, actually probably the most significant armed power, armed forces in European Nato. And so we've got to remember that in the end, our interests and our values are very closely aligned with our European friends and partners, and we just have to find a way. This is the job of diplomats and politicians of making the institutional mechanisms work to enable us to do so. We also have more soft power to project beyond the European continent elsewhere, partly because of the English language, partly because of the influence of our universities, some of the best universities in the world, which have students coming from all over the world, the BBC World Service, the aid programme, et cetera, etc cetera. And so we can do that in cooperation with our allies, European allies and allies elsewhere, and thus amplify our own influence.

Lord Speaker:

In terms of the universities, there is a debate at the moment about China and the influence of China. Now they do not act in our interests, we know that, but is there a case for working with China and maintaining the number of Chinese graduates or particularly postgraduates, coming to our universities because a number of universities depend on that financially.

Lord Sedwill:

They do indeed, including those where I studied. I think with China, one has to be clear and strong, but also recognise just what an important power China is, and that isn't going to change. So there are many areas on which the West generally must cooperate with China, climate change being the most obvious example. But if we're going to be able to regulate the impact in new technology, then China has to be part of that conversation as well. That said, we shouldn't be naive about it. China has taken an adversarial stance. Much of this is down to the positions that they've taken. They do have a very different political system and an appalling human rights record, and they're responsible for huge amounts of industrial espionage.

So when it comes to our universities, our industries and so on, I think the answer is yes to Chinese students, but we need to be thoughtful about which Chinese students and in which subjects. I'd be very wary about having Chinese students studying the very high end of nuclear missile technology, for example, for obvious reasons. But there are many other subjects where those issues don't arise, and we just have to be thoughtful about that.

Lord Speaker:

In terms of the geopolitical situation, where do you think the main threats are at the moment, given your experience?

Lord Sedwill:

I mean, obviously the most acute for us here in Europe is Russia, and it's not just an aggressive Russia, it's a potentially unstable Russia. What happens when Putin finally goes? Russia could be both aggressive and unstable in that period, and that could be a massive national security crisis. There's still a great deal of instability to Europe's south and east, and the spillover effects of that can always affect us, whether that's terrorism, whether it's unmanageable levels of migration, whether it's organised crime and trafficking and so on. So we have to be on top of that.

The really big challenge of course, is China and the US-China relationship, and are they able to stabilise that? Are we able to manage the threat and challenge we face from China at the same time as maintaining economic cooperation, working with them on climate change and so on? And I think the other issue that is probably less apparent to people now is academics have lots of different fancy titles for it, but essentially it's the resurgence of non-alignment. During the Cold War, there was this group called the Non-Aligned Movement. Many of the countries are the same: India, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia.

Lord Speaker:

Well, actually we have the BRICS conference right at the moment.

Lord Sedwill:

We do. But the BRICS conference is interesting because it has these countries that want to maintain a positive relationship with the United States and with China. But in that particular grouping, Russia and China are represented, which is partly why it doesn't tend to achieve as much as sometimes one would expect. I think actually it's the phenomenon that's really interesting is that these countries like Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and the countries around them are seeking to navigate a middle course, positive relationship with China, positive relationship with the United States, and essentially refusing to find themselves drawn into the orbit of one or the other. And that requires very active diplomacy, the active deployment of soft power, active engagement on economic and security issues if we're to try and ensure that those countries don't drift into the orbit of our adversaries.

Lord Speaker:

Again, given your experience in many countries, particularly areas that are sensitive in terms of security, whatever else. I think you'd said that if you're going to have an autobiography, it could be called The Years of Living Dangerously. So tell us about your James Bond moments.

Lord Sedwill:

Well, I suppose probably the most dangerous moment I faced. I mean, there were various times that people were trying to kill me, particularly when I was in Afghanistan, this guy with a suicide vest came after me and so on. Essentially, that's part of that, that goes with the territory there. Actually, in some ways, the most dangerous moment I think I ever faced was when I was a UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq in the 90s. So this was after the first Gulf War and before the second when we were tracking down the weapons of mass destruction-

Lord Sedwill:

... that they had at that time. This was UNSCOM, the UN Special Commission, and the heads were, when I was there, was Ambassador Butler, an Australian ambassador, before that Rolf Ekéus a Swedish Diplomat had run it, and we were trying to get into, we were trying to find the documentation that would tell us where essentially they concealed certain elements of their programme and they were hiding it in one of Saddam Hussein's palaces. So we were trying to get into this palace. He wasn't there and his sons weren't there, but there was this terrified young soldier who stopped us. We were unarmed UN weapons inspectors. All we had was blue baseball caps and local liaison. And there's nothing more frightening than a frightened young man with a gun.

Because if you're dealing with a professional, he'll either shoot you or he won't, but it'll be a rational, cool-headed decision. This youngster, he was probably only 16 or 17. He wasn't scared of us, he was scared of getting it wrong and what would happen to him or his family. And I remember having to calm the situation down. One of the American inspectors with us was trying to, it was a big guy trying to overbear this youngster, use his physical presence, and you could just see the situation was getting out of control. And so I intervened and just used my Arabic and tried to calm the situation down. And that's probably the closest I ever came to being shot directly by someone where there was absolutely no protection.

Lord Speaker:

And if you hadn't been speaking the language, it could have been much more.

Lord Sedwill:

Could have happened. Yeah. Yeah. He could because he was just terrified. This young man was terrified and he had a gun and he had his finger on the trigger. And so the answer is not to do the James Bond thing and sort of do something kinetic. The answer is to take the temperature down and speak very slowly.

Lord Speaker:

Yeah. Absolutely.

Lord Sedwill:

And take your sunglasses off and look him in the eye and be friendly and just try and calm the situation down.

Lord Speaker:

When Sir Jeremy Heywood took seriously ill in 2018, Theresa May asked you to become Cabinet Secretary.

Lord Sedwill:

That's right.

Lord Speaker:

What did you feel taking over at that particular time, particularly with someone so distinguished as Jeremy?

Lord Sedwill:

As Jeremy, yeah. I remember having a real mix of feelings. I mean, first knew Jeremy as a friend, and so I was deeply saddened, upset by his illness. I think he and I were probably two of the last people who believed, I think everyone hopes, but who believed he might make it back to work and that he'd be able to see through his cancer when I was covering the job for him. I never, I mean I was a diplomat, I was National Security Adviser, that was a job-

Lord Speaker:

And you kept that as Cabinet Secretary?

Lord Sedwill:

And I kept it, and you might want to come back to that, but that was a job that I felt really well qualified to do. We've talked about some of the reasons for it, and I knew what I was trying to do in that job. Cabinet Secretary was not a job which I'd ever aspired to or sought to equip myself for. So I think the feeling I had really at the time was two things. One, the loss of Jeremy, and second, the sense that I was stepping into something which I'd never really prepared for. And indeed I did try to persuade Theresa May that she might want to choose someone else who had equipped themselves for it, but we were in the midst of the Brexit negotiations. The reason actually I held onto the role of NSA at the same time was because obviously the Prime Minister covers all those responsibilities, and I think she needed someone who was covering all the same bases as her in that very intense period. It was always going to be a temporary arrangement, but it seemed right at that time.

Lord Speaker:

You mentioned it coming back to the post of National Security Adviser in your discussion, give us an insight into that.

Lord Sedwill:

Into the what, being National Security Adviser?

Lord Speaker:

But also the dual roles, which seemed Cabinet Secretary seemed enough on its own to do without that.

Lord Sedwill:

Well, people have said that, and of course, I mean, you've interviewed former cabinet secretaries and NSAs, and I mean, I essentially agree. It was always clear, even for me, this was not going to be a permanent arrangement. I think I would just remind people that there was one person who covers all of those responsibilities, and in the end is the executive decision maker. That's the Prime Minister.

Lord Speaker:

Yeah, absolutely.

Lord Sedwill:

And previous Cabinet Secretary, as you mentioned, Robin Butler, had actually also had security responsibilities as well, and they'd had teams of people to support them. So that's what I did too during that period. But I think particularly in that period, with all of the political instability here, the intensity of the Brexit negotiations, of course, the change of Prime Minister from her to Boris Johnson, it made sense for there to be one person in the professional machine whose responsibilities directly match those of the Prime Minister and who could support the Prime Minister across the whole of the spectrum of her and then his responsibilities.

Lord Speaker:

Now, you were also present at the Salisbury poisoning and Novichok. Now I don't want to go into details because there's issues you wouldn't be able to discuss, but just initially at that when you are both Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser.

Lord Sedwill:

Well, it was an extraordinary moment. I think there was the sense that we all had that all of the rules and conventions we'd understood that would apply, even in dealing with an adversarial relationship as we had with Russia and had had with Russia for several years by then, particularly since the invasion of Crimea, that we could no longer rely on them to abide by the sort of accepted conventions and rules. And indeed, I had a conversation with my Russian counterpart fairly shortly after Salisbury, Putin's diplomatic adviser, very experienced guy who I'd known for many years. And he said to me as we were imposing the various sanctions that we imposed on Russia, and I was explaining what we were going to do.

He said, "But Mark, you seem to want to take us back to the Cold War." And I said, "Well, at least we all understood the rules." And I think that was the thing that really struck me about the Salisbury attack was that that would never have happened during the Cold War. And there was this sense that they were just prepared to breach any norms, any rules, any conventions of normal international behaviour, even between adversarial nations.

Lord Speaker:

Regarding the AI and the dangers and we've seen that already with the imposter videos, whatever else. It's a really dangerous time. You've suggested perhaps using AI to undertake benefits in immigration duties. Now that'll mean the loss of quite a number of civil servants as a result, again, putting some people on the scrap heap as a result. What humanitarian argument do you have there?

Lord Sedwill:

Well, I think this is just in that sense, it's another wave of automation as we've seen in many sectors of the economy and in some of the places you've represented in your political career, you've seen the results of that as factories that would've employed, and industries that would've employed tens and hundreds of thousands of workers. Those processes have been automated and those people have been retrained and moved on to other jobs. And I think that has to be true of the public service as well. In the end, if there is a more efficient way, if we can automate more of the processes, if we can save money, we know the government has a big gap between expenditure and tax revenue. If we can save resources by doing that, make the process more efficient, automate white collar work the way that blue collar work was automated, much of it in the 20th century, then I think in the end that has to be the right way to go. It's not putting people on the scrap heap, it's retraining them for other tasks.

 And I think actually there's a really important opportunity here because in a sense, because of the nature of the way public services work, it's pretty much one size fits all. If we can enable people to self-serve, those who are capable of doing so, who are digitally able and so on, it's more convenient for them as citizens and so on. It also means that we can free up resources to give a better, more bespoke service to those people with complex needs who are most dependent on the state, who find the complexity of the state most difficult to navigate because they have so many points of interaction with the state. And we can hopefully give them a better service, enable them to be cared for better than we can at the moment when essentially we're dealing with millions and millions of processes. So it isn't just in immigration, I'd say the same in tax, I'd say the same in benefits, elsewhere. And I think there's an opportunity here.

Lord Speaker:

Does the tax system need to change?

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah, the tax system's too complicated. And again, much of the processing can be automated.

Lord Speaker:

Regarding the Cabinet Secretary role, what do you think the priority should be for a new Cabinet Secretary, given this time of turbulence, the public mood, not having much confidence and trust in politicians in the system. The view that nothing works in the country, which I don't believe, but there's an element of that, so we've got to deal with perceptions. So how should a Cabinet Secretary keep these things in mind and ensure that the ministers, the Prime Minister, has a view for the future?

Lord Sedwill:

Well, I think a new Cabinet Secretary has really three big things they have to do, and you've touched on it in your question. The first is they have to win the confidence, win the trust of essentially four groups, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the permanent secretaries, and of course they're an important liaison point with the palace and the head of state as well, because that's an important feature of our own government. So that's the first part of it, is managing those relationships and keeping those relationships in balance and having the confidence in both senses as in the support, but also the trust of all of those different groups.

Second, the Cabinet Secretary is head of the Civil Service, and the Civil Service is only 10% of the public service, but it's essentially sitting at the heart of it. And I think as you say, the next head of the Civil Service, probably more in a sense in that role as Cabinet Secretary, needs to be helping the government pursue an agenda of reform, modernisation, the use of technology to improve public services, to make them cheaper, to make them more responsive, to give a better service to citizens. And I think third, the public service generally has struggled really to recover its morale and ethos Post-Covid, we've seen that. And young public servants, not just civil servants coming in, not really connecting in quite the same way as their predecessors.

Lord Speaker:

An increase in some leaving.

Lord Sedwill:

And some leaving, exactly. And so I think that's the third thing I'd really want to focus on is what is the culture? How do we reconnect people with the ethos? How do we reconnect the public service with the citizens and therefore enable people to believe that actually things are working for them? When the Civil Service was rated most highly among the public, alongside in terms of trust alongside doctors and others, way above politicians and journalists, I used to remind some ministers, and indeed the journalists, it was when we were delivering best, you dug into those numbers. And it wasn't that they thought Sir Humphrey was giving great advice. It was the local people in their benefits office, their tax office, dealing with immigration casework, were doing a great job for citizens at the sharp end, and that's what we've got to keep in mind. It's fundamentally about the citizen.

Lord Speaker:

So as a former speaker Tip O'Neill said, in America, ‘all politics is local’. That's what you're saying.

Lord Sedwill:

All politics is local. And in the end, the clue is in the title. It's the Civil Service, the public service, and that's about the citizen.

Lord Speaker:

You're on record as saying that if Gladstone reappeared and went round to the Civil Service, he wouldn't see much change. So it's quite a comment on that. So how do you see the Civil Service changing its role and capabilities, mindful it's not just a Civil Service, it's the whole governance issue and I'd like to take you on to that.

Lord Sedwill:

So it was really a comment about government as a whole, that the structure of Whitehall is still pretty much the same as it was in the 19th century, where the departmental, the vertical structures, if you like, the departments are very, very strong. And every government, certainly in my professional lifetime has struggled with creating strong horizontal structures, strong connective tissue across those to deal with some of the really big issues. So you have the current government talking about their missions. We've five mission and we've seen previous governments wrestle with similar kinds of issues where Gordon Brown had the cross-cutting public service agreement targets, Tony Blair talked about joined-up government, et cetera.

And so anything that is really, really important for the country, economic growth, social inclusion and so on, is inevitably going to involve a wide range of government departments. And the structures to enable them to work essentially as a team in a coherent way are not as strong as the structures that in both Whitehall and Westminster with committees and so on, that encourage them into a rather siloed view. And that was the point I think I was trying to drive out there, that actually the structure of government is still very vertical.

It doesn't really reflect the diversity of experience around the country, in this country, unlike almost any other country. As you said, Tip O'Neill saying all politics is local, but he operated in a federal system where local elected politicians were responsible for local issues. Here, as soon as the words postcode lottery is heard, a very local issue comes up in Prime Minister's Questions even, and it may not be illustrating a wider point. So I think there's a lot we need to consider about the degree to which our governmental system is responsive to the needs of citizens throughout this crowded but complex country.

Lord Speaker:

Do you think Number 10 is too small? I had Chris Patten on, and he said that as Environmental Secretary, he said most of this stuff he had to deal with should have been taken by local authorities. And it's said that the Prime Minister has to spend a lot of his or her time on issues which could be dealt elsewhere. So should Number 10 be more strategic? I remember a comment, I think it was a French Prime Minister, President Jospin visited Downing Street, and he asked Tony Blair if he could see his economic advisors, and Tony produced the one person, whereas in France they had about 30.

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah. So I think there is a tension here. I'm not in favour of a large centre because I think what happens then is that you start duplicating the functions of departments. So what you need, I think you used a really important word there, is strategic. What you need is a strong and strategic centre that can really drive the Prime Minister's key priorities in the case of the current government, the five missions, previous governments' slightly different variants of those, and has the authority to do that. That doesn't necessarily mean lots of people at the centre. It means having a few, relatively few, very high quality people who have the professional capability, but also the Prime Minister's political capital endorsement to enable them to operate. And actually the big battalions should still be within the departments. But one of the things I was trying to encourage when I was Cabinet Secretary was all departments should see themselves as system leaders.

Some departments are very big and have tens of thousands of civil servants directly delivering to the public. Others a relatively small department for health and social care, for example, is actually a relatively small Whitehall department. It's responsible for the NHS, a huge complex institution for public health, for social care, which is a fragmented public-private third sector provision. Yet the department itself is actually quite small. Their job is to try and lead that entire system to achieve outcomes for the citizen. And I think both Whitehall as a whole should think in those terms. And the centre particularly should be thinking in those terms, how do you shape the environment? How do you provide the strategic leadership? How do you hold people accountable but not try to have so many people that you are replicating, you're duplicating the work of others?

Lord Speaker:

With 24 or so ministers in the Cabinet, and each department being consulted in any initiative coming from one department. It seems there's quite a bureaucratic element to it. And what can we do strategically in a Cabinet that meets for two and a half hours per week, say?

Lord Sedwill:

Sometimes less. And of course, actually the Cabinet itself might be more, that might be more than those two dozen because you'll have other ministers who are attending Cabinet.

Lord Speaker:

Attending.

Lord Sedwill:

I think at one point we had three dozen, we had to put an extra table in the room.

Lord Speaker:

Well, that seems a bit outdated does it not?

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah, I think, exactly. And actually if you look at other governmental systems, they have fewer departments. So the American system has many fewer departments. Xi Jinping, President Xi Jinping runs China with the Politburo standing committee of seven people. Now-

Lord Speaker:

And American Cabinet is smaller than the British Cabinet?

Lord Sedwill:

American Cabinet is smaller than the British Cabinet, et cetera. So I think there is a case for streamlining government in that way. I think you then have fewer higher quality, bigger figures running those bigger departments, more authority devolved to either the devolved administrations or metro mayors or wherever. And then the quality of central government focusing on the issues that only the central, national government can focus on would in my view be better. And I've argued that case for many years.

Lord Speaker:

My own experience as a parliamentarian, particularly as a select committee chair, the Treasury Committee, was that in many respects, we've franchised our political responsibility to regulators. And that accountability, that transparency, that power influence of select committees could be used much more in engagement. Now, I know there has been a background of the executive over the past 40 or 50 years taking power to itself, but something needs to change there, is there not, and the accountability of regulators and maybe a reduction in the number of regulators I think is important.

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah, I agree with that and I think one of the features, I chaired a commission, a think tank commission on this. One of the features that we see as a result of that is essentially a ratchet of risk aversion because all the hard incentives on the regulators as human beings are to be risk averse, being yanked in front of a select committee and told that the cumulative effect of your regulatory involvement might take 0.01% off growth isn't going to make the front pages, but if something goes seriously awry, then being yanked in front of a select committee, being on the front pages is going to be a very uncomfortable experience. So it tends to create risk aversion. Actually, the only place I think where you can hold essentially the strategic risk of overburdening business and the public and actually the public sector with regulation, against the need to regulate effectively in order to make sure that as far as possible things don't go wrong, is in the political environment.

And that's with ministers and with Parliament. So I would favour a more strategic engagement between ministers, Parliament, select committees particularly, and regulators. I think you're right, there should be fewer of them. Their powers are too dispersed. And so this sort of arm's length relationship that essentially outsources what a fundamentally political decision to professionals who are not politicians and therefore not equipped to balance all the various interests off, I think that's probably gone too far. And as I say, what it tends to mean is that there's greater risk aversion and therefore more red tape and more bureaucracy than ministers or Parliament ever intended.

Lord Speaker:

There's a history of botched projects in government, HS2, the Post Office, individual learning accounts. Goodness, we could go on and on, tax credits, which I dealt with at the time when I was the select committee. So what's your view on acquiring capabilities in the commercial, the technological areas to match the expertise of the private sector outside? Because every time, it seemed to me that if there's a battle between government and the private sector, the private sector wins hands down every time.

Lord Sedwill:

That's because they put talent into the room and they pay them properly. I mean, that's one of the things we have to wrestle with.

Lord Speaker:

Procurement, for example.

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah, we shouldn't assume, by the way, now since leaving government, I've got a couple of private sector roles and I've seen some projects that look very like government projects in terms of their delivery with many of the same problems arising. So it's not unique to government with big and complex projects.

Lord Speaker:

What needs to change at the centre of government, Cabinet Office, Treasury, Number 10, because there was a bit of a dismal view, a former Prime Minister who said ‘impossible to change the Civil Service and the arrangements.’

Lord Sedwill:

So I think he's wrong about that. And I think sometimes reform efforts are seen as essentially what do you build at the centre to work around the system because you're very frustrated that the system is not delivering for you. Better answer is to change the system. If you don't think the system is delivering, reform it, modernise it, make sure that it is delivering for you. That's harder, takes longer but in the end, I think is a better answer for the country. So I think we do need a strong centre, and you do need the capabilities at the centre to really drive the Prime Minister's priorities. They only have a certain amount of time in office - any Prime Minister can only achieve a handful of really big things, however long they have. And you need that capability at the centre. That involves bringing, in my view, bringing in genuine experts from outside who really understand the underlying issues around whatever the Prime Minister's agenda is.

It doesn't mean a very big centre, it doesn't mean a really capable one. And then the kind of reforms, streamlining Whitehall, ensuring that programme delivery is prized as much as policy formulation, et cetera, et cetera. Those things will enable governments as a whole to deliver and deliver better. There are examples around the world of this being done really well. Actually, we do quite a lot quite well. We got an independent rating against other countries, starting in Jeremy Heywood's time and I continued it, and overall we were in really good shape, but there were areas where we could learn from Singapore, where we could learn from Finland, where we could learn from Estonia, where we could do a lot better. My view is make the system work, don't try and work around it.

Lord Speaker:

Estonia, for example, in digital and AI.

Lord Sedwill:

Exactly, exactly right.

Lord Speaker:

Again, if I remember correctly, Attlee's government had a very small Civil Service, Number 10, and it was less than anything from Wilson onwards, but what they delivered was fantastic. And if I remember correctly, debt was 250% of GDP.

Lord Sedwill:

Probably was after World War II.

Lord Speaker:

Some good things can happen with that. So as an economist, can we knock down the notion that if we've get debt of 100% GDP, we can't do anything?

Lord Sedwill:

Well, that's clearly right because we've had it at that level before. What we have to do is be able to service that debt and be able to convince the international markets, who in the end are those who buy our treasury bonds, that we have a sustainable fiscal and economic position that enables us to manage it. Japan has over 200% debt right now. I'm not advocating that we should go that far, but there isn't a magic number. The key thing is do we have credibility? Do we have a credible fiscal and economic plan?

Lord Speaker:

And Gus O'Donnell, former Cabinet Secretary, he said that we should change the fiscal rules. What's your view on that?

Lord Sedwill:

I think the key thing about the fiscal rules is you don't keep changing them. They need to have credibility. If you look at the government balance sheet, currently for every £10 we take in taxes, we spend more than £12 in expenditure, and that gap is mostly, it's almost exactly the same as the debt interest payments. So in effect, we're just covering our current expenditure, but we're having to borrow more to service the borrowing that we already have. That's not a sustainable position. So what we need is fiscal rules that have that on a trajectory. That means that the international markets from whom we borrow this money, lend it to us on a long-term basis for a reasonable level of interest. That's fundamentally about credibility and confidence, and that's about having an economic plan that achieves that. And the fiscal rules need to be part of that. They aren't some tablet of stone that is separate to that. It needs to be part of a coherent economic plan in my view. And then having set them, stick to them.

Lord Speaker:

Yeah. What should be the role of Parliament and all this in terms of relationship with the Civil Service? I have to say I had a good relationship with the Civil Service as the select committee chair, but there needs to be some improvement in the role.

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah, I think one of the things that certainly when I was at the Home Office was probably the most relevant experience. I obviously appeared before the Public Accounts Committee as all permanent secretaries do, another invention that goes back to Gladstone, of course. But I would also find two or three times a year I would appear on my own without a minister, if you like, without the political cover of a minister in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Actually in the Commons, interestingly, I wasn't asked to do so in the Lords, and perhaps that would be a good thing too. I think senior civil servants, I think in a modern era where transparency is so important and accountability is critical, I think it is right the senior civil servants appear not just as representatives of their ministers, but actually they're responsible for big operations. They should be appearing before select committees, sometimes in private, most often in public.

And I think if there's a healthy relationship, then that doesn't have to be too intrusive on the impartiality of the Civil Service. I think the trick here, and I think you certainly will know this from your time as a select committee chair, is that the select committees don't treat the Civil Service or the civil servants the same way they treat the minister.

Lord Speaker:

No.

Lord Sedwill:

There needs to be less of the political knock about, if you like, and I think select committees mostly get that right. Where it becomes awkward is when a civil servant is almost being drawn into the political sphere and where there's a clear distinction between the two. I think it works really well. I think it's absolutely right that Parliament has a relationship with those senior civil servants and particularly the select committees too.

Lord Speaker:

What additional powers would you like to see select committees have if any as a result of that, and should they have a role in scrutinising pre-legislation?

Lord Sedwill:

I am in favour of that. I mean, as we know in the Lords, there's an awful lot of legislation that could do with some improvement to its drafting, and often it gets to us and then-

Lord Speaker:

Because there's much less scrutiny in the House of Commons

Lord Sedwill:

Exactly. Just because of the pressure of business and so on, less expertise. And so quite a lot of the Lords' time, as you know much better than I, is just spent not only in debating the rights and wrongs of the policies, but actually just simply in trying to ensure that the legislation is in better shape that is actually going to have the effect that the government actually intends. And I think more pre-legislative scrutiny to knock the legislation into shape to ensure that departments aren't actually the major generators of amendments after second reading, which is usually part of tidying up the legislation. That kind of approach would be wise, particularly for legislation that is significant and is going to take several years to implement. If you're thinking about things, something as significant as universal credit or big health reforms, these are areas which-

Lord Speaker:

Pension reform.

Lord Sedwill:

Pension reform, exactly.

Lord Speaker:

Well, you have to go over more than a four or five year government period.

Lord Sedwill:

Exactly. Exactly. And these are areas where I think select committees really could add. Select committees probably with some expertise of their own, so not just the political members of the select committee, but the way that, for example, the Joint Committee on National Security has people who've got deep expertise in national security from academia, et cetera, supporting them. I think select committees with that kind of professional support from outside enabling them to scrutinise would be a benefit. They probably do have the powers they need. They just need to be used better.

Lord Speaker:

Finally, I'll take you onto the House of Lords and your membership. Why did you accept a position in the House of Lords? What do you think you can contribute to that, and what positive role do you think the House of Lords makes given the dismal comments from outside about the House of Lords?

Lord Sedwill:

Well, I think, and there's clearly a strong case for reform of the Lords, I'm personally uneasy about an entirely appointed chamber. I think in the end, in a modern democracy, one needs to have more legitimacy than that. But I don't think that means we have to go the whole hog and set up a sort of elected senate that's a competitor to the House of Commons. There's a conversation for another day. But I think we do need to think about the structure of the House of Lords and if there's an appetite for that, that's the kind of thing, having been Cabinet Secretary and seen the relationship between government and Parliament, I hope I might be able to make a contribution to. I think the crossbenches in the House of Lords are a really important feature of our governmental system, and it's where people who, like me, senior judges, ex-military, et cetera, can bring some of that expertise.

And I think that also adds to the cocktail. I mean, there's some very experienced political figures in the House of Lords, but it enables government and Parliament to have people from outwith the political system to bring that expertise. And so when I was asked whether I wanted to become a peer when I retired as my predecessors, I thought, yes, I believe I can make a contribution from the crossbenches and bring some of that experience to bear. To be honest, I'm still, I mean, even though I've been in the Lords for a few years now, I think I'm still slightly finding my feet here though, because how do you really as an individual peer, make a contribution? I've offered as a crossbencher that now we're in a new Parliament, if the opportunity arose, I'd like to serve on one of the committees, one of the committees where I have something to add. I think one of the things that's really striking about the Lords is there's not much tolerance. You know this better than I, for the sort of rent-a-quote type

There are issues from which they do want to hear from someone like me because they think I have something to say and something interesting to say about it. There are plenty of issues in which I decide if I stood up, you could imagine they be thinking, "Well, why on earth is he bothering to talk about that? It's not his area of expertise." So I would like to be able to contribute on the areas that I think are or I have some expertise to bring to bear. And the other thing I've learned, and I didn't expect to learn this, and this is in talking actually to one or two very senior MPs, actually senior backbenchers, is I've been able to pick up in particularly one issue, in my case it's been Afghans who were left behind after the evacuation and use the position of being a parliamentarian to put pressure on the government, the last government, and now the current government to really address that question.

And I think one can use one's position, as long as one's thoughtful about it, to be able to, I think campaign perhaps puts it slightly too grandly, but to bring a focus to particular issues of that kind. And what I want to think about as that one hopefully resolves itself, is are there others where I can pick up and use the position of a parliamentarian to really advance an agenda I care about.

Lord Speaker:

I met Theresa May recently when she came into the office and with a very good discussion. And she strikes me as someone that's always had political objectives, even although she's Prime Minister, and she did say that one of her themes in the House of Lords will be modern slavery and engaging, a very important part. So I see the House of Lords as individuals coming along given their experience. They don't need to speak in every subject, they don't need to attend every day, but they're there to ensure that their expertise is listened to.

Lord Sedwill:

Yeah. Well, I agree. And that's where I've, my maiden speech was just after the invasion of Ukraine and normally maiden speeches, of course, you pick a sort of quieted debate where you can talk about your background and so on. I remember starting that speech by saying, I think we all had about five or six minutes starting that speech by saying, "I hope my Lords, you'll forgive me if I don't use my time to talk about that and I'll focus on the issue of the day."

Because it was quite clear people thought as the most recent national security adviser and Cabinet Secretary, that it was worth my contributing to that debate. And I've been quite thoughtful about the issues on which, as I say, I have picked up, which is why I've picked up this question of the Afghans we left behind, because I have a deep personal interest in that having been there and I think it is a question that needs advancing. And I think what I want to try and do here, if I have judged this right, is identify what the other one or two issues of that kind are that I can really pursue.

Lord Speaker:

Good. And my recent discussion with Lord Patten, Chris Patten, my final question was being mindful of the Italian Job and Michael Caine, the last line of it was he said, "Hey guys, I've got a good idea." Tell me your last line here, what's your good idea?

Lord Sedwill:

Well, of course his good idea was to try and stop them all going over the edge of the cliff, which-

Lord Speaker:

Well, that's quite appropriate here.

Lord Sedwill:

Exactly. Exactly. Crikey, what is my good idea? I don't think, well, of course we never found out what Michael Caine's good idea was because that's when the credits roll. I think, look, to the extent I have a good idea here, I think one has to come to this place with a due sense of humility. I still feel it's a bit like going to senior school for the first time where you don't really understand the rules until you break them. Is for me, it's how can we modernise the Lords as a whole? This is an agenda you've been very interested in pursuing, not just have an entirely appointed House in perpetuity that inevitably therefore has a particular demographic, but also do so without losing the expertise, the insight and the tone and culture.

The much more thoughtful and inquisitorial tone and culture of the place. Because I think that would be a major loss. And if I were able to contribute, I was still a relative newcomer and junior member of the House, if I were able to contribute to that, that would be my good idea. How should the House of Lords look like in 2100? I think it should still be here. It'll probably look quite different, but it would be a real shame if we concluded that by 2100 it no longer had a relevance because I think it really does.

Lord Speaker:

And for the record, as you know, we've had discussions, you've been very helpful to me in a number of areas. So that is very beneficial for me as Lord Speaker, you've already made a contribution, so I'm going to watch from the sidelines as you develop your big idea. Thanks very much-

Lord Sedwill:

John, Lord Speaker, thank you very much.

Lord Speaker:

... that was terrific. Thank you.

Lord Sedwill:

Thank you.