Oral evidence: House of Commons Governance, HC 692Tuesday 18 November 2014

Oral evidence, 18 November 2014.

Witnesses

John Manzoni, Chief Executive of the Civil Service, and Michael Whitehouse, Chief Operating Officer, National Audit Office, gave evidence.

Chair

Mr Manzoni and Mr Whitehouse, thank you for coming. Apologies for the slight wait. As I explained, we were aiming for this session to run for 45 minutes. It is possible that there will be a vote around 6 o’clock. We will do our best to be brief in our questions. We have asked you here because you have great expertise but also because we are having to grapple with a two-board model in quite a complex organisation, and you both have two-board models. What have your experiences been? What is essential to ensure that these two boards work effectively?

John Manzoni

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have been in the government for precisely nine months. My personal view is from 30 years of private sector experience. I do not usually call them two boards in the private sector; I call them a board and an executive committee. That is how I would characterise them. The board is usually the collective body, made up of a combination of executive actors and non-executive actors. The mix of skills is, of course, important. It is essentially disposing on the propositions made by the Executive. The executive group below it is usually headed by the chief of the executives, who is also often times sitting on the board above. In this context, the management committee or whatever it is called is usually an executive body. In this case, I think that we have some non-executives in there, although I am more used to seeing the non-executives in the higher body. Those are the people who generally run the operation. What is probably most important is that the members of what I call the board, as opposed to the executive committee, do not attempt to play in the space of the executives. The board usually has lots of different experiences; it brings that experience to bear on the issues and understands what its role is. It plays that role as a board. If members of the board individually choose to play in the executive space, it usually causes all sorts of chaos.

Michael Whitehouse

I agree with all that Mr Manzoni says. We have a board within the National Audit Office that has been in existence for about five years, and we have what we call a leadership team, which is the executive of the NAO. It is a bit more complicated in the case of the NAO because the chief executive, the Comptroller and Auditor General, is a statutory officer of the House of Commons, so he has statutory responsibilities, which do not come within the purview of the board as such. What the board does is give assurance on our overall strategy, our resourcing, our capability and the progress that we are making with our business plan and strategy. As you will be aware, we also have the Public Accounts Commission, which meets twice a year, when the Comptroller and Auditor General, the non-executive chair of the NAO board and I go to present the strategy and the forward budget. We are held to account in that way. It is important that you have a connection between the board and the executive, so the Comptroller and Auditor General and I are members of the board.

Chair

Who chairs the board?

Michael Whitehouse

There is a non-executive chairman. At the moment it is Sir Andrew Likierman, and it will be Lord Bichard from 10 January 2015. The non-executives are obviously in the majority. There are five non-executive members and four executive members.

Chair

Can you put papers to the board without them having to go through the Comptroller?

Michael Whitehouse

I have never had to do that, but if I wanted to, I could.

Chair

This is the last question from me, and I thank you for your very helpful note. Looking at your role as COO, you seem to be responsible for a lot of the operations of the NAO. Do you carry those out autonomously of the Comptroller, even though you report to him?

Michael Whitehouse

It is a difficult one to answer. In theory, yes, but the nature of the relationship that I have with the Comptroller and Auditor General is very close. We discuss these issues at length, and it is a very good working relationship. I think that is very important. I am held accountable for the implementation of the NAO strategy and ensuring that there is sufficient resource and skill within the organisation. I stress that the Comptroller and Auditor General is the accounting officer and chief executive of the organisation.

Chair

Was that delegation determined by the commission, by the board or by the Comptroller?

Michael Whitehouse

By the Comptroller and the board.

Sir Oliver Heald

Mr Manzoni, the Cabinet Secretary is senior to you in the ranks, isn’t he?

John Manzoni

Yes, very clearly.

Sir Oliver Heald

Do you find that that in any way hampers you in your role as chief executive?

John Manzoni

In the month that I have been doing it, no. There is no reason why it should. The key to this is, first, clarity of accountability and clarity of delegation. Structurally, we must be clear that people are doing different jobs. Having got that clarity, it is up to individuals to behave in the right way. It is about picking individuals for the different roles who understand how to behave, because there are always going to be areas of overlap. So far, I have found absolutely no issue, and I don’t foresee any issues. I am doing a different job.

Sir Oliver Heald

Here we have a Clerk who is a very senior figure in the House administration, and some people are suggesting that there should be a chief executive, too, albeit lower down the hierarchy and reporting to the Clerk—in effect, the chief executive would be just under the Clerk. From your experience of business-type people and the sort of people you might recruit as a chief executive, do you think that that is an impossible model? Or do you think it is workable?

John Manzoni

I am bound to say that it is workable because I am in that position, but I do actually think it is workable. It rather depends, of course, on the nature of the two roles. As I understand it—and I am by no means an expert—on the one hand you want somebody to run things downwards, and on the other hand you need somebody to provide the constitutional advice and all those things. Those are two very different roles. There is no reason why those two things cannot be done by two individuals.

Sir Oliver Heald

What do you understand as the difference between a chief executive and a chief operating officer?

John Manzoni

Well, it varies. In my private sector experience, I would define usually a chief executive as the place in the organisation where—so, looking from below, an organisation is often structured in sort of line departments, delivery entities, and functional departments, with people looking at the professional standards across the organisation. The chief executive is where those two things come together, usually. The chief executive is the senior-most executive actor in a private sector company and oftentimes—always, in fact—is sitting on the board above. There are instances where other executives also sit on the board. The chief financial officer is common and then, less common, but quite often, other executives are also sitting in a capacity on the board. But the chief executive is essentially very clearly their boss, and that is how it works in the private sector. Indeed, I am operating in a slightly different model today, because the public sector is more complex.

Sir Oliver Heald

You are a Permanent Secretary. Are you the accounting officer for the matters you deal with?

John Manzoni

For the matters I deal with, I am an accounting officer.

Sir Oliver Heald

Mr Whitehouse, what would you see as the normal support arrangements for a chief exec or a chief operating officer, in terms of the posts and teams directly reporting to you?

Michael Whitehouse

If you take the experience of the NAO, we have streamlined a lot of our back-office functions and our overall structure, so in terms of direct reports to me on a day-to-day basis, it would be the chief finance officer, the head of resource and the director general responsible for the quality of the NAO’s products. Those are my direct lines. Also, there is our head of strategy. That does not mean that I do not have leverage over the people at the front line. We have about 50 directors within the organisation who are responsible for the products that the NAO produce and the relationship that we have with different Government Departments and the work that they do for the Public Accounts Committee. I do not have a direct relationship with them, but I have the authority to talk to them and ask them questions about their performance. In so doing, I would be working with the total NAO leadership team, but I do have that right of access, that right of questioning and the right of influence.

Mr Watts

What tools and authority do you think a chief executive needs to effectively deliver change in an organisation and to deliver good quality services?

John Manzoni

Let me just try on this. Leadership qualities is where it actually all starts. I do think there needs to be some level of clarity of accountability and delegation to that individual, but by no means does that—normally, in the private sector they have, as I have mentioned, everything reporting to them. I am operating now in an environment where I do not actually have everything reporting to me. I have a number of functions and other activities reporting directly to me, but actually, just as with Michael, one relies on influence and credibility; relationships are critical; communication skills—all those things that can get things done in an organisation, because whatever structure you put around almost anything, it always comes down to human beings and relationships. I put leadership at the top. I think one needs some clarity. You need to be accountable for some specific things. If you are just floating in the ether, that is not going to be very helpful, so you need to have some things that you can use to leverage. And then I think it is about credibility and relationships.

Mr Watts

Do you feel that you have to be absolutely clear about delegation? Who is responsible for delivery and do they have to be accountable to you, if you are the final arbiter of whether something is effective or not?

John Manzoni

Well, in the private sector, yes. This is a more complex environment. I am operating today as the chief executive of the civil service, but I do not have direct reports of all the Permanent Secretaries. I have direct reports of the functions in the centre of Government—so the technology function, the human resource function, the commercial function and all of those things. I also have an input into the assessment, appraisal and, therefore, the future of the Permanent Secretaries and I talk with the Cabinet Secretary. The relationship that I have with the Cabinet Secretary is absolutely critical, just as it is for Michael. In this instance, I do not have all of the levers, but I am not sure that I would either wish to have all the levers or that it would make a lot of difference. It depends on how I choose to operate.

Michael Whitehouse

I would agree totally with what Mr Manzoni said. I think it is about the quality of the information that you have. The important thing for any successful organisation is that people feel empowered, there is clarity about what they are responsible for, there is a chief operating officer and that the channels of information that come to you—some of them may be formal and some informal—are sufficiently sophisticated that you can begin to see where things are either being very successful or are not working as you intended, so that you can be a bit ahead of the curve in terms of the interventions you might need to make.

Mr Watts

What happens when something goes wrong and you have identified it as going wrong? Do you not need levers to pull to make effective change?

Michael Whitehouse

Of course, if you see something go wrong you have to take action as quickly as possible and there are different ways in which you can take the intervention that may be needed. In my case, it may be an issue around the quality of a product. The leverage I have with the individual teams and the different people within the organisation is that I can hold them to account, I can initiate things and I can initiate remedial action, but I don’t have something precise or easily defined. A lot depends on the nature of the problem you are dealing with.

Mr Watts

The point I am trying to get at is if something has gone wrong and you have identified where it is wrong, haven’t you got to have the ability to make that change? That may mean structural change or staff change, but you have got to have some power as well as everything else.

Michael Whitehouse

I agree totally. If there was a structural change needed, I would refer that to the Comptroller and Auditor General for discussion and our wider leadership team and we would agree as a group the change needed. In some instances, immediate action may be needed. That may be a coping action before you get to a longer-term solution, in which case, I would probably make that decision, which I have the authority to do.

Jesse Norman

Mr Manzoni, will you characterise the difference between a CEO and COO? You said the CEO was the point at which the functional and the line management roles met. What was the contrast with the COO? Was it purely line management? You didn’t quite fill that out.

John Manzoni

No, I didn’t. It is different in Government, as many things turn out to be different in the public sector. In the private sector, the COO would normally be, on behalf of the CEO, overseeing most of the line activity and delivery activity. They are the chief operating officer so they are in charge of the operations, and the CEO would have functions such as strategy, technology and other things coming, and would then have a sort of span-breaking COO. That is the normal private sector practice. It is not thus here.

Jesse Norman

Is there a meaningful difference, just to be clear, in Government, or can we pass over that?

John Manzoni

We have declared some COOs in Government—Michael is one—but some Departments have COOs. It turns out that in the public sector, the COOs are more normally in charge of several of the services and functions in the Department, which is quite the reverse of the private sector. That is just how it has evolved.

Jesse Norman

That is very interesting. Obviously you have limited experience now, but just from what you have seen, can you talk a bit about whether there are particular constraints to being a chief executive in a political environment?

John Manzoni

There are differences. The agenda is perhaps a little more apt to change.

Jesse Norman

We enjoy that, if I may say so, Mr Manzoni.

John Manzoni

The priorities tend to adjust a little quicker. If I may say, I think that one of the roles of leadership in any organisation is to sort of absorb the exogenous changes and to make it okay and clearer for everybody below.

Jesse Norman

Even when you are having your chain yanked by politicians of different codes.

John Manzoni

Absolutely. One of the issues for us in the civil service, and maybe why a chief executive post has been created, is that maybe we can create a little more capacity to absorb all of that and make it okay for people who are doing really difficult things over a long time frame and who have to be organised to do that. That is part of the role of leadership.

Jesse Norman

That is potentially very interesting in the context we are discussing. I just have a final question for you, Mr Whitehouse. In the NAO, how do you manage without interference the professional responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor General versus, as it were, those of the chief executive?

Michael Whitehouse

If you go back to our model, the Comptroller and Auditor General is the final arbiter on decisions relating to the products that come from the NAO. The principal products are the audit opinions of the financial accounts of each Government Department and agency and the value for money report that is presented to the House. He has a statutory responsibility for that and takes it very seriously. His focus is very much on ensuring the quality of the product. Every account and every value for money report requires his individual sign-off.

Jesse Norman

That is his primary purpose.

Michael Whitehouse

That is his primary purpose. That means that I have to be confident that I am delivering for him an organisation that ensures that the primary products coming to him are of appropriate quality. Having said that, those two roles cannot be completely divorced, because we are constantly talking about the quality of the output and the strategic direction that we are taking the organisation in. Again, I would agree with Mr Manzoni that the role of the chief executive is to determine the strategy, so Sir Amyas Morse very much determined the strategy and the direction of travel for the organisation in consultation with our board. I am making it happen, but I cannot make it happen unless I have a really close working relationship with Sir Amyas.

Jesse Norman

But there is real scope for a punch-up between you.

Michael Whitehouse

I don’t think there is. We have never had that. We may have frank discussions behind closed doors, but we are very much a team. I think we are successful because we are that team.

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Continuing, Mr Whitehouse, on that point, you do not clash with the Comptroller and Auditor General, but is that really down to your personal working relationship? Are the structures set up to some extent to allow clashes to happen with the blurring of lines between responsibilities? Or do you feel comfortable that, even if you did not particularly get on, the lines are sufficiently clear that you would not clash?

Michael Whitehouse

I am fortunate that we do get on very well, but if there were circumstances in which we did not, I have access to the non-executive chairman and to the board, of which I am a member. I am confident that the nature of that relationship is such that if I wished to raise an issue or if I was not happy about something, I would have the ability to do so or be so. That is more or less set out clearly. I have not had to action that in any way.

Jacob Rees-Mogg

The next question is really to ask you both what skills are needed for a good chief executive or a good chief operating officer. Could you also possibly mention whether you think we get too tied down with private sector titles when we are trying to do something in the public sector that is fundamentally different? Mr Manzoni, you almost touched on that in a previous answer.

John Manzoni

In answer to your first question on the required skills for a chief executive or, to some degree, a chief operating officer, No. 1 is leadership and No. 2 in this context is that one has to understand how to get things done in large, complex organisations. I do see examples of people knowing how to get things done in small organisations, but getting things done in large organisations usually involves different skills. Small organisation tactics in large organisations is a bit the same as the board coming in at some level. An awareness of understanding of how organisations work, depending on the nature of the organisation, matters, and of course communication and all those things also matter. I am not sure: I define my own role basically through an execution lens. Government do a lot of things. I can add no value as a chief executive from the private sector into the policy-making structures; there are people who are far better at that than I am. But what I can bring is a lens called, “Actually, I know how to make things happen with people, with organisations.” I think much of the same things that make things happen in the private sector—frankly, if I’m honest, we could build that muscle in the public sector a bit more than we have today, which I assume is why I’m here. It is about clarity, accountability and delegation, and I would say that in those three areas there are opportunities for improvement.

Mr Heath

Could I ask Mr Whitehouse a question? I am intrigued by this relationship in the National Audit Office. I am worrying about whether we are getting hung up on titles. If you were not titled chief operating officer but you were titled chief executive, and the Comptroller, with his royal appointment, carries on comptrolling and you get on with running the organisation, would it make a blind bit of difference to the fact that you were called chief executive, rather than COO?

Michael Whitehouse

I think it would, to an extent. I take your point about the Comptroller continuing to comptrol. There is an important point to be made. I am struck by what Mr Manzoni said. This ability to have the time and space to think more widely, to think about the direction of travel of the organisation, to have that vision and understanding of where you want to take the organisation in the evolution of its strategy is an important role that the chief executive has, and it needs to be clear that that is vested in one individual. I call that individual the prime mover, who presents those ideas to the board and takes them forward. So, I don’t know if I have answered your question, but I think there is a difference, and in my case—my world—it is different because of the nature of the statutory responsibilities that exist with the Comptroller and Auditor General in that post. I am also struck by Mr Manzoni’s point. I think the role of the chief operating officer, to get away from the title, is really to make it happen, and there is a certain skill set that goes with that, really. I think it is both tactical and strategic; it is about communication. It is about taking hard decisions when you have to take those hard decisions, and I do think that there is something about it. You can’t divorce it from strategy; you have to understand the vision of the organisation and sign up to it. But you have just got to make it happen. In answer to Mr Rees-Mogg’s question, I think that we get hung up on titles in the public sector. I was struck by evidence you took from Lord Browne, and I think that it has been echoed by other witnesses. It is this clarity about what you are seeking to achieve. You are very clear about that; you take a long-term view; you understand the journey to getting to that vision; it is very well-thought through; and people know in the organisation what their responsibilities are and how they are held to account, and you support them.

Mr Heath

Mr Manzoni, you made the point about what private sector experience brings to the role. Do you think that is an essential factor for a chief executive to have, or are there other factors that are equally evident within the public sector and that would equally inform the role?

John Manzoni

My observation is this: this is no position at all, but I believe that, having spent a long time in the private sector brings a fresh perspective on issues associated with implementation, which I think is beneficial to the public sector, if I may say so. I think it adds to the mix a bit, because I see things through a slightly different lens than I perhaps would if I had spent a career in the civil service. One isn’t right and one isn’t wrong, but I think the blend of these things is actually beneficial. By the way, it doesn’t matter what you’re called, in my view. Provided that the structure, the accountabilities and the delegation are clear and that people are behaving in an appropriate way—as I have emphasised several times—provided that happens, it does not matter what you are called, just get on and do the job. At senior levels, it really should not matter.

Valerie Vaz

Lord Browne is resigning because he found it hard to make Government like business—that is what he is saying—so we need to clarify what he means. It is interesting what you said, Mr Manzoni, about getting things done. I think a lot of civil servants out there will be very upset by what you say. It is almost implying that nothing got done until you came. I am not quite sure whether your comment was about getting things done, or getting things done quicker.

John Manzoni

I think those are your words, not mine. People are working extraordinarily hard; it is amazing how much does get done. Things could be done even better.

Valerie Vaz

Okay. This is an interesting model that we are looking at in the House of Commons, because it is different from what you have seen, both where you are currently and in the past, even in your statutory organisation. Given that you have had a look at the structure, what lessons do you think we could take away? What lessons could you give us about how we can move on from the structures that we have?

John Manzoni

I must admit that I am no expert in the particular issues that you are wrestling with, but from my read of your inquiry thus far, as I think I described at the beginning, there are lessons around there being two different roles that are trying to be performed. One is about the operation, if I may put it that way—it is more about the operation—and the other is about constitutional advice and has a very different mix. My first point is that those two things are less likely to be found in an individual perhaps than in two different individuals. In many ways, and provided that it was clear and that both performed their different roles—having been defined clearly—the outcome might be better in two than in one, because that would allow each one to focus on different things. That is my first observation. My second observation is that it would be more normal for the Commission—in this case, I think—to be the place on which external non-executives sat, leaving the management board or the one below primarily focused on the execution of the doing. I think we have it different today, as I understand it. Those are just two things. We can have a conversation about which one is on top and all of those things, but in some senses the role at the top is usually performing the primary purpose for which the organisation is destined, and the one below, whether you call it a CEO, a COO or whatever, is getting it done. I offer those thoughts, too.

Valerie Vaz

Ultimately, it is the person who has been elected, would you say, or not?

John Manzoni

Doing?

Valerie Vaz

The final arbiter—the person at the top who makes the final decision for the Commission.

John Manzoni

I am insufficiently qualified to make a statement in this particular context, to be honest. I just do not know.

Michael Whitehouse

Again, it is good that we are in agreement on most of these issues. I would agree as well. I would expect to see non-executive representation on the Commission, although less so on the management board—I forget the exact terminology. What works well in my organisation—I think it would be mirrored in the House—is the link in your world between the Commission and the management committee. You have to have that link. If you do not, I do not think the organisation works effectively. I would expect the chief executive or Clerk, whatever the post is, to be a member of the Commission and, as the accounting officer, accountable to that Commission and ultimately to the whole House. The only other thing I would say is that it is always important to look at why an organisation is successful and to maintain that. My original subject was history. The Westminster Parliament has such a strong tradition of strong legislative scrutiny and holding to account, and it is about how you maintain that and grow it for future generations. So I think that is an important issue for me. There has been a lot of discussion about the operational running of the House. Of course, any future refurbishment will be important, but a lot of people know how to do that and what is very important is maintaining the quality of that scrutiny.

Valerie Vaz

The skills that you mentioned, such as leadership skills, can be grown internally through secondments. Do you feel that there are enough people here who can do that?

John Manzoni

I will give you my observation, although I am not setting out anything that I have not already said. I am actually rather surprised that we do not have the structures inside the civil service today which grow delivery skills. We do not have professions or a structure in the civil service where a 25-year-old can come in and spend a career doing increasingly complex implementation, because actually what we promote is policy skills or private secretary skills or something else. That is the balance that I was talking about.

Valerie Vaz

There is—I think you need to ask the right person. The school of government trains people up, and when I was a civil servant we used to have a skills audit; the key thing is money and training. Mr Whitehouse, can you have skills inside and grow them?

Michael Whitehouse

I started my career in what was the Exchequer and Audit Department in 1979, so I have been around for a long time, but I was fortunate that, during my long career—I trained as an accountant, as everyone does at the National Audit Office—I spent four years in other organisations both in this country and internationally. As Mr Manzoni said, that was not necessarily in implementation skills, but in other skills that I am now able to bring to this role. I certainly agree that, without sounding arrogant, you have to have a degree of intelligence and an ability to ask the right questions and to understand how organisations operate. The nature of the NAO’s work is quite interesting, because it enables you to look at organisations and what makes them successful and less successful. I have been ably supported to use that skill in the role that I have now. So I do think that you can grow that.

Valerie Vaz

Thank you both.

Jacob Rees-Mogg

Mr Whitehouse, I am very interested in how you have made the relationship with the Comptroller work, because it seems to me that personality is crucial in this. If there were a chief executive who was not a Clerk, we would have a quite sharp break from what had happened previously and that may not be welcomed by the people who were overlooked. When the Comptroller came in, did everyone in the organisation think, “Oh good, we have got a very good person in,” or were there any problems at that point? Did you have to overcome any internal difficulties or resistance in order to get on with him?

Michael Whitehouse

The answer is no. If I am very frank—I know the organisation very well—Sir Amyas Morse came from running a global company, and I think that the feeling within the organisation was that this was a man who would come in and change everything and introduce commercial principles very quickly. That is not what Amyas did. He looked at the organisation and decided that it was not broken—things could be done a lot better, but it was not broken as such. We embarked on a strategy to build on what we had and we wanted to do it at an appropriate speed. We did not do everything overnight; we had a plan about what we wanted to achieve, but we considered the pace of change very carefully. We were fortunate in that, as I said, the organisation was not broken. I appreciate that in different circumstances—I am not saying this about the House in any way—you have to come in and work more quickly, but we were fortunate that we did not have to do that. Sir Amyas’s approach gained considerable buy-in and confidence in what he was seeking to do, although not for everyone. Over the last five years, at various stages, we have made some radical changes to how the organisation operates and how it is staffed—a number of people have now left the organisation—but we have done it at the appropriate time, so it has not been rushed. Again, I do not know whether I am answering your question, but I would stress again that it was very fortunate we got on well from day one. For me, having been somebody who worked in the NAO for most of their career, I had confidence that he had the interests of the NAO at heart and wanted to make it more successful. I think he has succeeded in doing that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg

And there was no initial underlying irritation that it had not been an internal appointment, but that it had been somebody from outside? Or was there a bit of that, but actually, he was very good at personally overcoming it?

Michael Whitehouse

I don’t know. To my knowledge, I don’t know of any internal candidates for the post. In fact, I know that that was not the case.

Jacob Rees-Mogg

That is very helpful.

Chair

You will know that we are wrestling with this issue. It has been in the line of questioning: splitting these two roles and what the relationship should be if we do decide on a split. We had a note of evidence from Mark Addison. He was chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service, and David Calvert-Smith was the Director of Public Prosecutions. One of the points that came out was that the DPP was the accounting officer, but the chief executive of the CPS was an additional accounting officer. I assume there is an accounting officer for the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Michael Whitehouse

Yes, the Comptroller and Auditor General is the accounting officer. We are subject to external audit by a firm of auditors that the Public Accounts Commission appoints.

Chair

Would it work—I asked Mr Manzoni a similar question—if you were an additional accounting officer?

Michael Whitehouse

No, it comes back to the clarity of responsibility. I know what I am responsible for to the board. This is a personal view, but I am not in favour of having an additional accounting officer.

Chair

Mr Manzoni, is the Cabinet Secretary, whom I think is your line boss—

John Manzoni

One of them.

Chair

It is the person through the green baize door, but in a different respect. Who does your annual appraisal?

John Manzoni

The Cabinet Secretary.

Chair

Fine. With input from the chap next door?

John Manzoni

I think from all sorts of people. I have not been through one. But he is my boss.

Chair

Is he an accounting officer?

Michael Whitehouse

As far as I know, no, he is not.

Chair

It is quite important, because my understanding was that in the old system it was the permanent secretary, or the person who filled that post in the Cabinet Office, who was responsible for the Cabinet Office’s budget, which, among other things, pays the wages.

John Manzoni

That is true today. Richard Heaton is the permanent secretary and is an accounting officer in the Cabinet Office.

Chair

And that includes the Cabinet Secretary’s office.

John Manzoni

And the Cabinet Secretary.

Chair

So here we have a model where the person who is at the apex of the official Government system is not an accounting officer.

John Manzoni

I make no comment. I do not think he is. I know Richard is, and I know I am.

Chair

I am not sure what he would be accounting officer for. Do you know the answer to that question, Mr Whitehouse?

Michael Whitehouse

Are you talking about Richard Heaton?

Chair

Is the Cabinet Secretary an accounting officer for anything?

Michael Whitehouse

I think Gus O’Donnell was. I am not sure.

Chair

It would be useful to find out the answer to that question. You understand why I am asking. I thank you very much indeed. Your evidence has been really helpful. Oral evidence: House of Commons HC 692 23