Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much to Dorinnia Carville, who is on a break from the Public Accounts Committee, and —

Ms Dorinnia Carville (Northern Ireland Audit Office): Until tomorrow.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): — her team from the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) for attending the Committee this afternoon. I therefore welcome to the Committee for Finance, rather than to the PAC, Dorinnia Carville, the Comptroller and Auditor General; Suzanne Jones, director; and Laura Murphy, audit manager. We may go into a short closed session at some stage, if doing so is necessary and useful, but, for the time being, we are in open session. Dorinnia, please give us an opening statement.

Ms Carville: Thank you, Chair and members, for inviting us here today and for recognising our report 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service'. We have provided the Committee with a high-level briefing paper. I am joined today by Suzanne and Laura, both of whom were involved in writing the report. Together, we can provide you with any additional information that is of interest to the Committee's inquiry. I know that you have had a number of briefings on the report's findings, so, rather than outline them, I will take the opportunity, if I may, to brief you on why I decided to report on that area.

The Committee will be aware that, as Comptroller and Auditor General and an officer of the House, I have total independence to choose what I report on in my public reporting and value-for-money studies, within the confines of my statutory remit to consider the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of how public money is spent, without assessing any associated policy. You will be aware that a previous Audit Office report titled 'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service' was produced in 2019. The then Public Accounts Committee held an inquiry into that report in 2020, and 11 of the 12 recommendations in the subsequent PAC report were accepted in full by the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS).

As the Chair said in his opening comments, I work very closely with the Public Accounts Committee. During this mandate, I have heard at first hand many senior public officials advise that Committee that there is a lack of resources, which is impacting on public service delivery; a significant number of vacant posts, which is impacting on the delivery of key objectives; and a lack of skills in particular areas, which, again, is impacting on public service delivery. I was also repeatedly advised of that by Departments in many of my own areas of work. During our financial audit work, we evidenced that seven out of the nine Departments identified people as being a key corporate risk. Given all the evidence that officials have provided on the impact of resourcing pressures, I had cause to look back at 'Capacity and Capability in the Northern Ireland Civil Service' and at the Public Accounts Committee report. From looking at them, I felt that the recommendations in both should have assisted in remedying the issues that were being presented. I therefore commenced a piece of work to look, importantly, at what actions had been taken to progress the reports' recommendations, which were previously committed to by the leadership of the Civil Service, and at what impact those actions had had. In designing the scope of the report, I focused on updating it to reflect changes to the Civil Service in recent years, as well as changes to the modern workforce landscape more generally. That is why 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service' picked up on some areas that had not previously been spotlighted.

When we commenced looking into the area, we quickly found that the previous reports' recommendations remained sound and applicable to modern workforce needs but that there had been little progress in actioning the recommendations to date. In carrying out the study, we very quickly recognised that the report's overarching recommendation would essentially be to re-recommend implementation of the previous Audit Office and PAC reports.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): For the record, the original NIAO report was published in November 2020.

Ms Carville: Sorry, I said "2019".

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I want to make sure that I am quoting the correct date. Yes, the report on NICS capacity and capability was published in November 2020.

Ms Carville: Sorry. During our examination, the NICS progressed the people strategy and incorporated the recommendations into the strategy document.

To finish, our latest report makes only seven recommendations, and I will summarise them. The recommendations focus on a need for the leadership to work collectively to deliver the people strategy and, in so doing, the previous reports' recommendations; to maximise the opportunities that emerging technologies bring; and, ultimately, to design and plan for a workforce that is suitably skilled to deliver the modern requirements of public service in the most efficient and effective way possible. There is a real opportunity to provide a modern and skilled workforce and, importantly, to establish the underlying data to measure and evaluate its efficiency and effectiveness. Doing that will allow the leaders to use that data to measure and re-evaluate continually the changing nature of public services and, importantly, to have the agility to adapt to what is a constantly changing environment. The people strategy provides a road map for achieving that, but implementation and delivery are now critical. I will finish there, Chair, and am happy to take any questions that the Committee may have.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much. Members, as always, please indicate should you wish to ask a question. Dorinnia, you said that, in essence, the 2026 report re-recommended implementation of what was in the 2020 report. Are we to understand from that that the view of the NIAO report is that no progress or not enough progress has been made in the intervening five and a half years?

Ms Carville: Absolutely. We have said that progress has been much slower than we expected. I went so far as to say that progress fell short of expectation. We go into detail. There is a detailed analysis in the appendix to the report in which we recognised that there had been some progress made but that it was slower than had been expected.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You say "some progress". I do not want to be accused of being wholly negative, but is it worth picking out what particular progress has been made? Five out of the 23 recommendations have been achieved. We took evidence from those in charge of the NICS people strategy. They were at pains to point out to us how they felt about five out of 23 recommendations having been achieved. Not to paraphrase Meat Loaf, but I am not sure that too many people would say, "Five out of 23 ain't bad". I do not think that it is that good. Is that fair to say?

Ms Carville: We point out in our report that five recommendations were achieved, 13 were partially achieved and five were not achieved. We have therefore tried to give recognition where recognition is due. Similarly, the PAC's 2021 report pointed out that five recommendations were achieved, five were partially achieved and two were not achieved.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): One of the most persistent issues that comes out of your report is the high level of sickness absence. It appears to be getting worse. There may be multiple drivers for that. We know that, in the past number of years, post COVID, there has been a higher incidence of mental ill health, for instance, In many cases, civil servants are working under significant burden, owing to the service's carrying vacancies and so on. What are your observation about that? It appears that absence levels are going in the wrong direction.

Ms Carville: We point out in our report that there has been an increase in the number of working days lost and an increase in cost, although that correlates with pay increases over the period. We compare sickness absence with that in England, Scotland and Wales. Previous witnesses have said that not everyone measures sickness absence in exactly the same manner, but, at the time of our report, sickness absence levels in the NICS were 70% higher than those in the rest of the UK. Mental ill health is the main cause of absence. That is consistent across the public and private sectors.

There are, however, areas that I will bring to the Committee's attention that we have pointed out in our report. Chair, you previously picked up on the age of the workforce. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has highlighted a link between sickness absence and age. Since our previous report, the average age of the workforce has stayed somewhat the same, while the average age of the Senior Civil Service has increased, so that is one contributory factor. Our report also points out that, in that category, mental ill health is the main cause of absence, with some 32% of absences attributed to work-related stress.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thirty-two per cent of absences because of mental ill health are related to work-related stress.

Ms Carville: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Have a third of the absences because of mental ill health been reported as being a cause of a vacancy, or is it a third of absences in general?

Ms Carville: It has not necessarily been reported as a cause of a vacancy. Mental ill health is a leading cause of sickness absence, accounting for almost 42% of the working days lost, with 32% attributed to work-related stress. Just to correct myself, it is therefore 32% of the 41·6% of working days lost.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. On the workforce plan, there is a NICS-wide people strategy, and there will be a NICS-wide workforce plan. One of the issues that keeps coming up in Committee is the slightly strange situation of senior officials in the Department of Finance having overall ownership of the people strategy for the Civil Service but individual HR policies being owned by individual accounting officers. There is a question to be asked about the role of the head of the Civil Service (HOCS), who does not currently appear to be directly accountable for improving HR and workforce metrics. Do you have a concern about that anomaly? As I said, it keeps coming up that the Department of Finance has responsibility for the policy overall but that there is not enough central ownership of the levers to drive the strategy across the Civil Service, because accounting officers and their HR directors are individually responsible for policies. Have you witnessed that challenge?

Ms Carville: I will make a couple of comments about that. Through our work and that of the Public Accounts Committee, the idea of silos and how the Civil Service is currently constructed come up repeatedly. I slightly disagree with the contention that HOCS has no accountability or role, because there is a very clear role for the NICS board, and the head of the Civil Service is the chair of that board. The board incorporates all the permanent secretaries and accounting officers who head up Departments. There is therefore a collective responsibility at NICS board level, and you can see that in the Public Accounts Committee's response to the report on capacity and capability. The response, albeit it was written by the Department of Finance and came through the Minister of Finance, who has ultimate responsibility, stated at the outset:

There is therefore recognition that accountability sits with the NICS board and the head of the Civil Service.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The NICS board was reconstituted, and it is now somewhat more independent, because it has independent, non-executive directors (NEDs) on it.

Ms Carville: Yes. Three NEDs have been recruited to the NICS board, and three subcommittees have been set up by the head of the Civil Service and the board.

One of the subcommittees has a particular focus on the people strategy and on progressing it in conjunction with the board.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK.

Ms Forsythe: It is good to see you not at the Public Accounts Committee but at the Finance Committee for a change. Thank you very much for coming to speak to us about the Civil Service. You talked about the underlying data and its importance to managing and monitoring efficiency and effectiveness in order to see what exactly is going on. I recently tabled a number of questions and was quite surprised that I was not able to get the information. For example, I asked how many vacancies were being filled by people on temporary promotion and how many by agency staff. I got answers such as, "We do not hold that sort of information". To me, that is quite basic information to hold. When you talk about underlying data, do you mean that quite basic information is not available or complex data? I was quite shocked, because I thought that it was a simple thing to ask for. Can you provide a bit more detail on that?

Ms Carville: Sure. In the context of our work more widely, I have probably raised concerns about data in almost every report that I have written since coming into post. I made those comments in the context of where we go from here. I know that the Committee has already been briefed on the Integr8 project. There is real opportunity for Integr8 to ensure that, going forward, we have levels of data that will allow us to produce instantly exactly what you are asking for. Just last week, the Public Accounts Committee took evidence on that project. That is in the public domain. The senior responsible owner, Mr Duffy, gave evidence on the work that is being done to ensure that the data is fit for purpose. One of our recommendations in 'Leading and Resourcing the Northern Ireland Civil Service' is to ensure that suitable data and suitable metrics are available that really focus on measuring productivity. From my perspective, it is about getting value for money from the workforce and ensuring that we have the most efficient and effective workforce to deliver modern public services. My comments are therefore more in the context of where we go from here, but, yes, there are many reports that I could point you to that state that current data is inadequate.

Ms Forsythe: It was really useful for us to visit where the Integr8 project work is being done to see and understand what Integr8 will look like. At the same time, however, even though it will be more user-friendly and enable people to access data in a particular way, the data is already there. It is shocking and not good enough that nobody is assessing the data properly at the minute. It should not require you to come in as an external auditor to look at that as an issue. If the Civil Service is managing its own functionality, it should be able to get the data, especially when it has an annual pay bill of £1·27 billion.

You talked a little about workforce metrics. Is it fair to say that it is difficult for you to assess whether there is value for money from that level of spend using the existing metrics?

Ms Carville: Absolutely. We started to look at metrics not long after the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in the South published a report comparing productivity levels in the North and in the South. It is something that we wanted to do at the outset for the public sector here. The report showed that Northern Ireland as a whole had very different levels of workforce productivity. I had hoped that we would have been able to drill down into the data on public-sector productivity. Unfortunately, however, the data was not there to enable me to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. I was therefore unable to report on that piece of work, which I found very disappointing. That is really what drives the final recommendation in the current report, because it is a position that we should be able to get to in the future so that we can compare our productivity level with that of other jurisdictions.

Ms Forsythe: A key point to note is that Northern Ireland has a higher percentage of people employed in the public sector than anywhere else in the UK does. We have a huge pay bill, yet the metrics do not allow us to assess whether it represents value for money. That is not a good place to be in. It will be good to tease that out more as our inquiry proceeds.

I want to ask about agency staff. There is a big framework, to which a valuation of about half a billion pounds has been applied. I understand that about half of the 4,900 agency staff are employed through the Department for Work and Pensions contract. Is that the most appropriate way in which to approach procurement for such a huge-value, wide-ranging agency framework? Look at the individual Departments. There are different types of vacancies, of specialisms and of agency staff. The Civil Service may not be able to get people on temporary contracts when recruiting at a more local level. Not every business, agency or firm is able to put in a bid for procurement for such a huge agency framework, so a lot of the potential workforce is being priced out of the market.

Ms Carville: For the leading and resourcing report, we did not look at the framework and the methods for recruitment in that way. Rather, we came at it from a value-for-money perspective. We therefore looked more at the actual use of agency staff, their cost and the impact that they were having. As we have pointed out in the report, the number of agency staff has more than doubled in the five years since the previous report. We did not really look at that framework. Instead, we tried to draw out how short term the use of agency staff is. Such use is impacting on a number of factors. For example, recruitment cannot keep pace, and a lot of pressure is being put on the system, given that there is an additional time and training cost involved with agency staff. To answer your question directly, however, we have probably not got the evidence to comment fully on that particular framework.

We are currently doing another piece of work, which is on temporary and agency nurses as a workforce. We are looking at the framework and methodology underpinning that. It will hopefully be published within the next month. The PAC will have primacy for that in the first instance.

Ms Forsythe: It is about being able to extract and assess the data on what agency people are doing and what they are covering: all the things that you mentioned. Using the current metrics, we cannot really assess the data. Thank you very much. Yours answers have been very useful.

Mr Kingston: Thank you for your attendance and for your report, which is helpful. You focused on making key recommendations, which will assist our inquiry. It goes without saying that, with more than 24,500 staff, it is important that there be effective deployment and management of staff and effective monitoring of how staff are deployed and supported in their roles. It is fair to say that your report shows that the progress made since your previous report has been disappointing. As well as having high-level, broad-brush proposals, with such a large workforce, it is about how we get into the detail of what changes need to be made. As you have heard, the Committee has made two visits recently. One was to hear about how the Integr8 programme will deal with HR and financial services, while the other was to Land and Property Services to hear about the Land Registry, given that much of it is paper-based.

Were you able to look into the internal workings of any Department and at actual transformation reform processes such as Integr8, or was your work at more of a higher level, involving looking at big data and more strategic changes?

Ms Carville: The purpose of the latest report was, as you say, to take more of a high-level overview and to try to make sure that, strategically, we pointed out the skills needed to try to address resource issues and pressures arising from the current situation. In other areas of our work, we go into detail a little bit more, but, for the purposes of that report, we purposely kept it a high level.

Where there were comparisons to be made, there are tables in our report that show which Departments experienced the most vacancies or the most temporary promotions, for example, and we highlight those. We do not comment on every individual one but on some of the bigger ones. For example, DFC is the biggest Department in terms of people — headcount — and the DWP contract is a big factor in vacancy. We did not, however, delve down into much detail for any individual Department.

Mr Kingston: I understand that. It is similar to our role. We want to make effective change, and it is a question of how to do that without having to visit every Department or work team. Clearly, however, we have a scrutiny role and need to ask challenging questions.

One of the frustrations expressed earlier in the meeting was finding out that NISRA has not published a quarterly report on sickness absence data since October or November 2024. You highlighted the fact that the average number of workdays lost due to sickness absence has increased since your previous report, with an average of 13·4 working days lost per staff year. Equally, you report that more than half of staff recorded zero sickness absence in a year and that 81·7% of days lost are as a result of long-term sickness absence. Did you have any difficulty receiving that data? We are concerned that the publication of data has not taken place for 16 months. Have you had any difficulty with that? Have you any particular comments to make on actions or recommendations to address sickness absence?

Ms Laura Murphy (Northern Ireland Audit Office): We used the data from the NISRA website. We were looking at the data annually rather than quarterly or half-yearly. The information was available for us.

Mr Kingston: OK.

Ms Carville: The one comment that I will make is that the reason why we pointed out that long-term absence accounted for such a high percentage is that the Audit Office has done work in the past to look at sickness absence and has found that, generally, long-term absence is more difficult to address for any employer. Typically speaking, an employer can more quickly and easily make inroads into the management of short-term absence. It can be more difficult in cases of long-term absences and prolonged illnesses. This year, we are likely to report — in what I call my general report — on absence levels across the Civil Service more generally, because we see some trends that we want to bring to people's attention. I just wanted to highlight the fact that that piece of work is ongoing.

We also point out where there are commonalities. We have mentioned that mental ill health is a main cause of absence. It is not just the NI Civil Service that is grappling with that; other Civil Services and the private sector are grappling with it. We also point out that our councils have higher levels of absence than the Civil Service. In the interests of balance, we are trying to be fair, balanced and reasonable in what we report. It is certainly a difficult area.

Mr Kingston: We will continue to ask questions on supporting people back into employment. It is concerning that people have been carried in long-term absences and that that skews the figures across the Civil Service.

Miss Hargey: It was interesting to look at some of the figures and to see changes with COVID and other societal shocks and stuff that we have all had to manage.

One area mentioned is the turnover of permanent secretaries and the number of temporary promotions — I think that there was around a 73% increase since 2020. That highlights the fact that a lot of change was happening in that period. There was also a 19% increase staff at the higher end of the pay scale, I think. That issue has been raised in councils as well. You say that a lot of it is to do with systems and implementation, but is instability — not having consistent leadership — in the Civil Service an issue? What do you see as being the key issues to focus on?

Ms Carville: I will make some comments and then invite others to come in. We thought that it was right to point out that there had been a high turnover of permanent secretaries over the past six years. I will put that in context: my starting point was to look at why the recommendations that had been accepted from a previous report on capacity and capability had not been progressed quickly, taking into account the shocks that you referred to. It is the leadership that is tasked with taking forward the recommendations, so the fact that there has been quite a high turnover has to have an impact too. We make no comment on that, but there are reasons for that turnover, such as retirement and people leaving for other reasons. There have also been reshuffles at permanent secretary level. There is a section in which we talk about the importance of planning ahead — succession planning. As you pointed out, although we note that there has been growth of 19% in the Senior Civil Service over that period, we also note that the median age of that Senior Civil Service has increased. At the time of the previous report, it was 47, and it is now 53. That is why succession planning is important for keeping an element of stability of leadership to drive through the huge transformational change that is needed.

Does anyone else want to comment?

Ms Suzanne Jones (Northern Ireland Audit Office): Those are the key points. There has been an increase in numbers in the Senior Civil Service. There has been a 21% movement since our report in 2020. There has been high turnover at permanent secretary level in particular, and we have seen some Departments that have had four permanent secretaries since we published our report in 2020. That is a significant turnover to have in such a short period. The concerns around there being so many permanent secretaries over such a short period are with the consistency that is provided. Other Departments have had three permanent secretaries in that time. There are a significant number of vacancies in the Senior Civil Service as well. All that creates issues with delivering consistent leadership.

Ms Carville: I will add to that. The other thing that I said in my opening comments is that seven of the nine Departments identify people as being a key corporate risk. The corporate risk owners, who are responsible for taking action to address corporate risk, are the boards and senior leaders of those Departments. That is why stability and collective responsibility are so important to effect the action that is needed to address the corporate risks. So much is vested in those leaders to effect the change that is needed to address that risk.

Miss Hargey: I have one more question about collective leadership. Is the approach still too siloed? Are they working in too siloed a way, looking down Departments rather than across them? Has that come up as an issue?

Ms Carville: I still see evidence of that, and I highlight that in my work more widely than in this report. I still comment on that quite a lot. That is the case at all levels, not just senior levels. We have commented on Departments working in silos in a number of our reports.

Miss Hargey: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. That was helpful.

Mr Kingston: I have a brief question. You referred to the assessment of the recommendations being that five were achieved, 13 were partially achieved and five were not achieved. Who carried out the assessment? Did the Departments do it, or did you? Did individual civil servants have any involvement or input? Did you take any findings or opinions directly from civil servants?

Ms Jones: Our approach was to ask the Department of Finance for an update on where it felt it was against the recommendations. That is reflected in appendix 1 of the report. We then undertook our own analysis of the information that had been provided to us in response to those recommendations. The analysis of the information and the view that was provided are very much ours. We had conversations with DOF officials in which we did not agree on all the ratings, but it is very much our assessment of the information that it provided to us.

Mr Kingston: So, the Department is not marking its own homework; you are marking it.

Ms Jones: Yes, very much so. It provided us with the information and its views on where it was in relation to the recommendations, but we undertook our own analysis of the information that it provided.

Mr Kingston: What about individual workers? You did not have an open call for the report, did you?

Ms Carville: No, we did not. We looked at the staff surveys that had been undertaken by the Civil Service and reported some of their findings, but we did not engage directly with civil servants per se.

Mr Kingston: There was some detail in those staff surveys, was there?

Ms Carville: Yes, and they are publicly available. In certain areas, those surveys are broken down by grade etc, so the reader can get a sense of who responded to them. I think that two surveys took place during the period of our report, and, where applicable, we drew heavily on those.

Mr Kingston: OK.

Ms Murphy: I will just add to that. Our main consultation with civil servants was with the head of professions group. We had a sample number of people in those roles, and the concerns that they had with their roles are included in the report.

Mr Kingston: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Were they more direct than some of their bosses were?

Ms Murphy: Yes, they were very direct about the issues that they faced in their roles.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): To expand on that point, a persistent theme, which is in your 2026 report, having been in your 2020 report and which came out of the Coghlin inquiry, is the imbalance between generalists and specialist services. Presumably, some of the heads of professions group are generalists. It will be a policy development group. Is that a frustration of theirs, or is it an observation that they continue to make?

Ms Murphy: The head of professions group is very much made up of specialists. It is a small number in the context of the Civil Service as a whole; around 60% of Civil Service posts are generalist posts.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I have one other question, which goes back to a point that you made about better measuring productivity and having that as part of the workforce strategy. You mentioned the ESRI work that has been done. Are we an outlier in not being able to properly measure productivity in the Civil Service specifically and in the public sector more generally? Is that a problem that is specific to here?

Ms Carville: Yes. There is a survey that many jurisdictions feed into — I will come back to you with the detail of it, Chair, because I cannot remember whether it is worldwide or Europe-wide — that allows productivity to be compared. I will source it for you and come back to you on that. When we tried to do a piece of work to incorporate it into the report, it was pointed out that Northern Ireland had not taken part in the most recent iteration of the survey, so we are something of an outlier. I will get the detail of that and forward it to you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It would be helpful to know that. That is a critical question. There are questions around sickness absence and performance management regarding what persistent issues are not being dealt with. Is it because of management, or are there persistent productivity issues that, bluntly, are not being measured and so are never addressed and that people may not be keen to talk about? It would be helpful to know that.

That has been really useful.

If members are content, we will go into closed session for a while. Effectively, we are in loco PAC, so we will do what the PAC does, which is to have wee closed sessions in which its members talk and get themselves briefed without the cameras, which is useful when doing a detailed inquiry.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK, members. Thank you very much. We had a brief closed session there with colleagues from the NIAO. There are a couple of additional pieces of information on the review that we will ask for. The PAC has seen them. We may also get some further historical detail, which we talked about, on the HOCS role and historical links to agreements, which we may want to explore. We will follow up on both of those things. That was extremely useful.

I do not think that we have any further questions that we need to address, but we have —.

The Committee Clerk: There are papers that the Comptroller and Auditor General indicated that she will —.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You indicated that there are particular papers that will not be provided. I thought that I had a note of them, but the Clerk does.

That was extremely useful. Thank you very much, Dorinnia, Suzanne and Laura. We really appreciate your time. We may hear again from you in the course of the inquiry, but that was really useful. We are basically nicking all your work, as the PAC normally does. This time, it is the Finance Committee that is nicking your work for our inquiry.

Ms Carville: Thank you very much.