Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I welcome Robert Murtagh, who is a national officer at the FDA, otherwise known as the First Division Association. No?

Mr Robert Murtagh (FDA): Not any more. It is just the FDA.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It is just the FDA. OK. The FDA is a trade union for senior managers and the Senior Civil Service (SCC). You are very welcome, Robert. Please make an opening statement. Members, please indicate if you want to ask a question.

Mr Murtagh: Thank you, Chair and Committee members. Chair, with your indulgence, I will begin by commenting briefly on the appalling scenes across Belfast and Northern Ireland last week. Those scenes had a very real impact on our ethnic minority members, who were scared and angry at what unfolded. People who call this place home, having worked for the Civil Service for decades delivering public services to the people here, were made to feel as though they did not belong. It underlines why equality, diversity and inclusion policies and initiatives in workplaces such as the Civil Service are so important. The workplace should not just be free from the indignity of discrimination and prejudice; it should positively promote inclusion and diversity, ensuring that everyone can succeed in their career and working life. We welcome the message sent by the head of the Civil Service (HOCS) last week that underlined the service's commitment to diversity and signposted to various places for support, including the staff networks. I wanted to take the opportunity while I was here to say that, so thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you.

Mr Murtagh: Thank you for the opportunity to be here and to provide evidence on behalf of the FDA. As you said, we represent grade 7s and above in the Civil Service, including the Senior Civil Service, and we also represent prosecutors in the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). We are the only union that represents officials across all devolved Governments of the UK. We are an independent trade union, and we are impartial. We do not take political positions. Our approach to the inquiry is to be as constructive as we possibly can, with a clear focus on how we ensure that the Civil Service is equipped, supported and enabled to deliver better outcomes for the public.

Our message is simple: you cannot separate the performance and culture of the Civil Service from the political and governance environment in which it operates. Our system of government here creates structural challenges that are fundamentally different from those elsewhere in the UK. There is no single centre of gravity or collective responsibility, and Departments operate with a high degree of independence. That makes prioritisation, cross-cutting work and long-term planning inherently more difficult. Those are not theoretical concerns; they have very real consequences for delivery. Political instability, periods without a functioning Executive and the absence of multi-year Budgets have significantly constrained the Civil Service's ability to plan and transform. Added to that, exogenous shocks such as COVID and Brexit have stretched capacity even further. It is important to recognise that Civil Service transformation alone cannot resolve the systemic challenges facing government here in Northern Ireland. I talked to a former senior official yesterday who said, "Government is hard, but government in Northern Ireland is even harder".

I also want to address the tone of the conversation about the Civil Service. There is, at times, a tendency to default to criticism of civil servants when outcomes fall short. While scrutiny is absolutely essential — nobody denies that — unconstructive criticism of civil servants who are unable to answer back risks undermining morale and, ultimately, delivery itself. Civil servants are committed to public service. They work within the framework set by Ministers and the Executive. When that framework is unclear, unstable or constantly shifting, it creates real pressure on individuals and teams. To put it plainly, many civil servants feel as though they are being pulled from pillar to post, responding to changing priorities and operating without long-term certainty while still being expected to deliver at pace. If we want better outcomes, we need a more constructive environment that recognises the pressures and supports the workforce to succeed, because, ultimately, a demoralised workforce will struggle to deliver reform, no matter how well designed it is. That is why we strongly support the people strategy. As outlined in the Audit Office report, strategic workforce planning in particular is critical to ensuring that we have the right people with the right skills in the right place at the right time. However, workforce reform cannot succeed in isolation. It must be matched by political leadership, stability and clear prioritisation. We also need to invest in the future leadership of the Civil Service. The graduate management programme offers a real opportunity to attract new talent and build the pipeline of future leaders that is necessary. At present, it is under-resourced. Strengthening it would be a practical and important step forward.

On digital transformation, the Civil Service has low digital maturity but significant opportunity. AI and digital tools can improve services and efficiency, but only if we invest in people as well as technology. That means training, capability and a clear strategic vision, and we have outlined that in the report that we did with the Fabian Society: 'Adopt, Innovate, Transform'. However, technology alone will not transform the Civil Service; people will.

We must also ensure that the Civil Service remains an attractive employer. Pay and conditions need to be competitive. Short-term fixes such as bonuses are not a substitute for a long-term, sustainable approach. We should also be cautious about simplistic solutions. Cutting staff numbers without reducing demand does not improve efficiency; it creates gaps and pressures. In short, you cannot cut the number of civil servants and expect the same level of delivery.

I will finish up and allow plenty of time for questions. Transformation of the Civil Service is necessary and achievable, but it must be grounded in reality. It cannot be like baubles on a Christmas tree, with everyone hanging their individual grievance with the Civil Service. It has to reflect the reality. That means recognising the structural constraints, strengthening our political leadership and investing in our people. Just as importantly, it means fostering a constructive environment where civil servants feel supported, valued and able to focus on delivery, not pulled in competing directions. As the FDA, we stand ready to work in partnership with you as a Committee, the Executive, Ministers and Civil Service management to support meaningful reform that delivers better outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you very much, Robert. That was a really useful opening presentation. Thank you, too, for your extremely thorough written presentation, which I encourage members to view.

I will move on to the issues that you raised in writing and orally. Your submission talks about "exogenous shocks"— I particularly like the use of the word "exogenous" — that is, things such as Brexit and COVID, but also political instability here. Can you say a bit more about the particular conditions of political instability in Northern Ireland, such as the stop-start Government and collapses, and the particular impact that they have on the performance of the Civil Service?

Mr Murtagh: Ultimately, as various reports have underlined, the best way to get the most out of the Civil Service is through strong political leadership. It is political leadership that unlocks blockages or stasis. The political instability that we have seen when we have not had an Executive, but even at times when we have, means that some of the big issues that we face do not get dealt with. It is as frustrating for civil servants as it is for everyone else. Bear in mind that civil servants often spend a long time working on a particular issue, and then, by the time that it gets to the Executive, if it even gets that far, it is stalled because we have a collapse.

In periods of collapse, there is the question of what we can actually do. The likes of permanent secretaries and accounting officers — senior officials — spend a lot of time having to work out what they can do and what, because a Minister is required to be in place, they cannot do. By the time that they have worked that out and are trying to get on and change the teams and how things are working to reflect that, we get a period where things settle down a bit, and the Executive get back up and running. Ministers then come in and, rightly so, say, "We have x, y and z. These are the issues that we need to deal with". I sometimes think that the expectation is that civil servants will be able to deliver in a three-year mandate what would have been difficult to deliver in a five-year mandate. That creates real pressure and real issues.

One of the issues that has been talked about is sickness absence, and, again, all of this is interconnected. The work-related stress that is, we know, a significant issue can, in part — maybe not fully — be explained by the stop-start, hokey-cokey Government that we have and the constant changing of directions. As I say, even when the Executive are in place, they are not always functioning as optimally as they could be.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You put that very diplomatically, which is admirable. I know that you are not a civil servant, but you are speaking on civil servants' behalf today.

When it comes to stop-start Government, I do not want to put words in your mouth, and, in your written submission, you are careful to say that it is not for the FDA to comment on a political decision, but it sounds as though your view might be that Civil Service reform should be meaningful and transformative. You are right to say that Civil Service reform has to be about more than cutting civil servants; it has to be a genuine process of changing how the machine delivers and operates. However, for any Civil Service reform or transformation here to work, it might have to go alongside some form of Stormont or political reform to make the institutions more durable.

Mr Murtagh: Yes, you are right: I am constrained in what I can say about reform, because that is a political question and not one for us to get into. However, I would argue that, if we are going to have wider Executive reform "go alongside" Civil Service reform, in the phrase that you used, we need to think about what that will look like for the Civil Service.

The Committee has talked about the structure of the Senior Civil Service and the role of the head of the Civil Service. To be clear, we have to separate the role from the person.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Absolutely.

Mr Murtagh: I am talking only about the role. It is a different role. It is, because of the structure of our Government, not akin to that of the permanent secretary in Scotland or Wales or to that of the cabinet secretary. We said in our written evidence that that role cannot be changed. For example, you could not make the head of the Civil Service the principal accounting officer for the Executive without looking at wider reform, and the wider reform should come first. What you are saying is, I think, that Civil Service reform goes side by side. To that, I would say that the Civil Service will reform on the basis of whatever reform is happening at Executive level, whether or not I like it or civil servants like it. The Committee's inquiry should ask what the Civil Service can do to transform within the existing constitutional framework. I make it clear that that creates a cap on what we want to see in the way of better delivery and outcomes. It is not controversial — I do not think that I am stretching my impartiality — to say that our structure was designed to put survivability and stability above effectiveness. That is not controversial; we all recognise that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Following on from that, would the kind of constitutional change required — to be clear, you are not advocating for or against it, given that those are political decisions; I acknowledge that — mean, for example, that a greater degree of collective Executive responsibility —

Mr Murtagh: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): — would be needed for there to be, in the view of the FDA, a context in which you could have a head of the Civil Service be the accounting officer for the Executive?

Mr Murtagh: Yes. I am not a constitutional expert, so maybe somebody who is coming to the Committee or somebody else who is watching will correct me, but that is my reading of the situation. Given that, in our system, Departments have a high degree of independence, it is right that permanent secretaries are accounting officers for their Departments and therefore accountable to their Minister and the Assembly. Changing that situation without wider Executive structural reform would mean that, as principal accounting officer, the head of the Civil Service would be accountable to the First Minister (FM) and deputy First Minister (DFM), giving the FM and DFM a veto, in essence, over the direction of resources in our Departments. That is not how our system of government works. That is why I say that you would need to look at wider constitutional reform if you wanted to change the role of HOCS. There is a reason why the role is unique: our system.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Indeed. OK. One of the questions that you touched on in particular was recruitment and the graduate trainee programme. I am pleased to see that, because it is something that I have talked about. I declare an interest, in that I launched a policy paper on it a few years ago. It was called the Make Change programme, and the idea was to bring in not just graduates but school-leavers and people who were mid-career. You specifically focus on the graduate path and draw a comparison with the fast stream programme across the water. That is a better resourced, more focused and, therefore, slightly more prestigious and effective recruitment tool. I understand that the UK Civil Service has restarted the graduate route of fast-track promotion to middle management. For a while, it was basically frozen. My understanding is that it has restarted but at a fairly low level or in a sporadic way. Will you give us more detail on that?

Mr Murtagh: It has restarted. I think that the last intake was two years ago, but do not quote me on that. It was a couple of years ago anyway. From my understanding, it was really competitive when it opened. There were 2,000 or 3,000 applications for 30 or 40 posts. We have to remember that we have a highly skilled workforce here. We have two top-quality universities, and a lot of people coming out of those universities would jump at the chance to get into the middle rung of public service at staff officer (SO) grade. There are graduate programmes at places such as PwC and other big companies. With a little extra resource and focus on the graduate management programme, there is no reason why we could not create a highly competitive graduate programme to compete with some of those bigger companies. We might not be able to compete on volume but certainly could on quality. The important thing is that it is not just about getting more people in and running the programme more regularly, although that is part of it; it is about having a properly structured programme.

There is a little bit of training here. The new people come in and hear from guest speakers and a permanent secretary and that kind of thing. That is good, but the fast stream has a base camp and properly structured training. The challenge as we move into job families and workforce planning — the move away from the big general service — is how the graduate management programme will interact with people moving into those job families.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Fast stream tends to be quite generalist recruitment, even if people specialise later.

Mr Murtagh: I am not an expert on the fast stream in the UK. Maybe it is general in the first year, but I understand that it is more professions-based now. Those are open questions about how the graduate management programme might work in the future. Do we bring people into general service for, say, a year, and then they decide which pathway they want to go down? In conversations that I have had with management side, I recognise that there is, because of the change, a little flux. Maybe that is one reason why there has not been an intake.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Do you mean the job families change?

Mr Murtagh: Yes. If everyone is going to be moving into job families and no longer the large general service, how does the graduate management programme interact with that? Part of my challenge to the Civil Service, and I think that it knows this, is, "Well, that's fine, but have we got people genuinely working on that?". Rather than my just raising it and people saying, "That's the challenge", do we have people working through that challenge?

I would be keen to work in partnership with the Civil Service to deliver that. The median age of the Senior Civil Service is 53, and we want to get that down. Anecdotally, some of our reps, having come through a fast stream, got to SCS level at a much younger age. With a bit more investment and more people coming through the graduate management programme, there is a high probability that you would see that median age of SCS come down.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes, and we will want to follow up on that. You mentioned that the multi-year Budget damages workforce planning. Obviously, we do not have a Budget at the minute. What position does that put civil servants in, given that they are operating in an unusual and irregular situation that will become more irregular and more legally problematic for them? It would be helpful if you said something about that and about what advice or guidance the FDA is giving its members or what it is hearing from them. Also, what reflections do you have on the absence of a multi-year Budget and what that means for workforce planning in the Civil Service?

Mr Murtagh: It is not just workforce planning, it is transformation in general. You were talking to Paul Duffy about Integr8 and some of the challenges with that. The response was, I think, that the risk factor was amber, sometimes flashing red.

I do not know whether that red was because of the lack of a Budget, but I imagine that that is a big cause for concern. It is not just the impact on workforce planning, therefore, but on other bits as well. As we state in our paper, the lack of agreement on the Budget is the antithesis of driving forward transformation. There is the issue of the absence of a Budget, but, on top of that, there is the issue of getting multi-year Budgets, which would genuinely allow for proper planning — not just workforce planning but the likes of big infrastructure projects. They would enable forward thinking. One of the challenges is that we are constantly in a reactive zone, and we want to try to get on top of issues so that we can be proactive.

Sorry, I have forgotten the first bit of your question.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): The first bit of my question was on what are, frankly, the legal peril and issues for your members. I say that because, among your members, you have permanent secretaries and senior officials more generally, and they are the ones who have to say to Ministers, "No", or, "I require a direction from you to spend that money, because I am not confident that, as a public official who is bound by 'Managing Public Money', I have legal cover to spend that money, Minister".

Mr Murtagh: That is a real concern. I do not know whether anyone in the Committee has seen yesterday's press release from the NI Fiscal Council.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Yes, we were talking about it.

Mr Murtagh: The second paragraph of that press release was quite interesting. I was quite surprised, although quite glad, to see it, because it showed that somebody other than me, and maybe a few other people, is talking about this.

Anyway, I think that there is real concern. It is not for me to give guidance; it is for the Minister of Finance to do that. I suppose that, ultimately, it is for the First Minister and deputy First Minister, but it is specifically for the Finance Minister to give that guidance.

As we know, a lot of permanent secretaries are new in post. The relationship between a permanent secretary and a Minister is so important. That is what unlocks meeting priorities and getting delivery. Ultimately, perm secs are in a position in which they have to challenge Ministers, but, generally speaking, it is about respectful challenge. They understand that that is how it is supposed to work. I am a little concerned about the position that we will be in. As I said, it is not for me to give guidance, but that is certainly on our radar. We are engaging with our members on that, and I think that we will engage with the Finance Minister on it.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Presumably, it will become harder, given that, as we talked about earlier, every Department is, in effect, its own little empire, because that is the way that it was set up constitutionally. That makes it slightly trickier for the Civil Service to say no to a Minister who is saying, "I want to spend on this thing. Go ahead. Crack on. We'll do it" given that the person who is in charge — the permanent secretary, or, indeed, other senior officials — is getting less direction from the centre, because that is the way that our system works.

Mr Murtagh: Yes, exactly. I am not sure that I could put it any better. That is the fundamental tension. I think that it was Andrew McCormick who said that there is a high bar for permanent secretaries to refuse Ministers. That is how it should be, in the sense that it is the Ministers who are elected, and it is Ministers who should be driving things forward. At the same time, however, as you say, permanent secretaries and accounting officers have obligations and fiduciary duties under 'Managing Public Money NI', and rightly so. It is for Ministers to be aware of accounting officers' obligations. My plea to Ministers, although it may fall on deaf ears, is that they work with their accounting officers and their permanent secretaries, try to understand where they are coming from. It may then come down to a ministerial direction and require Executive approval, but that is not a position that any of us wants to be in. Fundamentally, before doing all that, let us try to get a Budget agreed in order to save this.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. I will move on to colleagues.

Ms Forsythe: Thanks very much for coming to the Committee, Robert. You expressed a lot of ideas for reviewing Stormont, but I am keen to hear more about the people whom you represent. Last week, we took evidence from NIPSA representatives, which was very much focused on the sorts of issues that were being raised by the staff: the concerns, the structures and what is actually happening within the Civil Service. I am keen to hear about that from the perspective of those whom you represent at Senior Civil Service level.

Specifically, I am keen to get your take on feedback that I get on the fact that there is a Senior Civil Service, which you represent, and a mainstream Civil Service. Is there a clear and fluid link between them, or is there a "them and us" culture?

Mr Murtagh: We also represent grade 7s and grade 6s in the Civil Service. Undoubtedly, there are some people who look at it that way, but I do not get a sense that that is across the board. Senior civil servants carry a high level of responsibility, and it is right that they try to work to deliver Ministers' priorities and statutory obligations in, as I said, very difficult circumstances — a highly politicised environment; a four-party mandatory coalition — so the political environment cannot necessarily be separated from some of these questions. There is no doubt — I have made this clear — that there are workload pressures.

Ms Forsythe: I am talking more about the detail of a lot of the things that we have been looking at around absence, sick leave, work-related stress and bullying claims in parts of the Civil Service that involve those at the front line of delivering public services. We heard a lot of that last week, so I want to understand whether there is a fluidity between the Senior Civil Service and the mainstream Civil Service. I appreciate what you said about grade 6s and grade 7s, but they are paid £60,000-plus, and there are a lot of people in those bands. I am trying to get to the core of some of those issues, because that is what we are looking at in our inquiry. We are looking at finances. We heard last week about the numbers and costs attributed to sick leave in the Civil Service, but, when you look into that, you see that there are procedural elements to it and things contracted to outside bodies. I bring that up in order to understand what it means. I am trying to tease out the relationship between the Senior Civil Service and everyone else.

Mr Murtagh: I am curious about what you mean by "fluidity". Are we talking about the interactions between senior civil servants and civil servants below SCS?

Ms Forsythe: We have been teasing out a few things. If you have a lot of sick leave, is it correlated with bullying claims, people working away from the office, a particular type of work or there being a lot of vacancies or temporary promotions? Whenever that is the case — it came out again last week, so we have had it. We have shared service HR functions in the Civil Service. Is it the default to go through the shared services system rather than to go to your manager? Is the Senior Civil Service accessible as line management? It is that culture that I am trying to tease out a wee bit.

Mr Murtagh: I think that I understand better now. Thanks, Diane. I was trying to tease out what —.

Ms Forsythe: Sorry.

Mr Murtagh: No, it is fine. Part of it is the policies. You heard from our trade union colleagues last week about some of the challenges with HR Connect. We share that. I do not think that anyone doubts it. That is why Integr8 is happening and those things are going to be brought back in-house. The way that those things are dealt with is more about the policies and, as you said, processes that have existed. That is all changing. There probably was, in the past, a sense of "them and us" about the SCS and "ordinary", for want of a better word, civil servants. That is breaking down, but, obviously, more needs to be done. There has been criticism of an outsized focus on grade — "You're that grade, and you're that grade, and that means that I can't speak to you" and all the rest of it. I get a strong sense from our members that there is a broad recognition that — of course you have to respect existing hierarchies and where people are; you do not necessarily want to go over the top of people. Actually, however, there is also a genuine desire to deliver, so it is about finding the people who are going to unlock that and help you deliver. Again, you are talking about a lot of people. Obviously, I cannot account for every single one of them, but I think that there is a broad acceptance and a cultural shift away from saying, "I'm SCS, therefore I engage with only x cadre". If we want to deliver, we have to engage with the best people. Workforce planning will absolutely help with that as well. That might shift the focus away from talking about specific grades. Grades are still important, as is matching grades with job responsibilities, but we will have a better understanding of the skills that —. I think that this is one of the things that you will agree with the Audit Office — I certainly agree — that one of the challenges at the minute is that there is no really good assessment of skills in the Civil Service because of the way that it is structured. That is changing and moving forward. With workforce planning, Integr8, the policy renewal programme and all the stuff together — people, process, data, technology — we will see a continued shift away from dealing with people just because they are a certain grade to dealing with the right person because they have the right skills.

Ms Forsythe: This is one that I raised at a previous session with Department of Finance HR officials. When you come to those Senior Civil Service positions —. You referenced the Audit Office. Capacity, capability and missing skill sets, especially at senior levels, have been a challenge. I have concerns about Civil Service recruitment for posts at very high salaries. We asked questions, and it came through from the head of the Civil Service this week that 71 civil servants earn over £100,000, yet there are significant gaps in senior roles. It was the adverts for deputy secretaries that were going out. I made the point that not everybody in the job market is looking for a job, but there are really good people in certain industries, and if a job was named as being an engineering post in Infrastructure or a post for a finance person in Finance, that could entice them to think, "I want to work in the public sector and take on that role and that six-figure salary", and address some of the gaps. However, the posts keep being advertised as deputy secretaries, which would not catch the attention of someone who did not understand a Civil Service trawl. I am not in any way against internal promotions but, where there are really specific roles such as senior engineering, veterinary or finance roles, should there be bit more carving out of specific roles?

Mr Murtagh: The challenge with a grade 3 deputy secretary role — I am not sure whether it is different elsewhere — is that, because that is such a high leadership role, although you maybe do not need to have every single skill set for the team below you, you need to have strategic leadership and vision. Maybe it is a question of the right grade. I am not saying definitely not, but I am not sure, especially under the current structure. Even if we were to move with strategic workforce planning, because the deputy secretary role is a leadership role, you do need to have strategic vision. If we were saying that we wanted, for example, someone with a specific skill set in finance or procurement, I guess that that could be looked at. However, you are not going to be in a grade 3 role and doing only procurement. With the strategic workforce planning, however, I do not disagree with you that it is about how the roles are framed and attracting more people. You are talking about grade 3 but, even if we are looking at grade 7, what does that mean to people who are not exposed to it?

Ms Forsythe: That is the point that I am making: it is more the title. I am not saying that everybody needs to have only one skill set. Someone coming in at strategic leadership level and who is not familiar with the Civil Service will not necessarily look at a job advert that has the words "deputy secretary" and understand what that means. It is the same with grade 7 or any of those things. It is about attracting people and bringing them in.

Mr Murtagh: It is a question of how you frame it. I am not sure that, at that level, you are going to get —. Given the way in which the rest of the Civil Service is moving, you are going to have policy professionals, procurement professionals, IT professionals and all that kind of stuff. It is moving away from general service. However, I am not sure that, at deputy secretary level, it will be very specific like that, because, at that level, it is about the strategic leadership piece. You do not need to know absolutely everything. You do not need to be an expert in procurement, as long as you can work with your team and can make sure that procurement is being done and that you are listening to the procurement experts in your team. It is about the presentation aspect of it. I am certainly not wedded to the title "deputy secretary". The question is, "How do you get round that?", because, at that level, it is a more general role, if that makes sense.

Ms Forsythe: This is the final one from me. What are the main types of thing that people come to you with, as their union representative, for representation? If there are too many to say, do not worry. It was just out of interest.

Mr Murtagh: I know that there are guys waiting to come in for the next session. To be honest with you, we get sickness absence, so a lot of the issues that I deal with are about sickness absence. A lot of that is to do with work-related stress, and a lot of that is politically sensitive environments and a lot of pressure. Of course, bullying and harassment come through as well. The other frustration that is raised a lot is about promotion — people unhappy that they have not been successful in a promotion, or concerns about temporary promotions (TPs). I know that that is a concern for the Committee. We have consistently raised the reliance on temporary promotion. There will always be a level of temporary promotion, but there is an over-reliance on it, and that feeds discontent in teams. It is a mixture. It changes from one day to the next. It is a bit of everything.

Ms Forsythe: I appreciate that. Thank you, Robert.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Robert, for your attendance and your paper. We see the people whom you represent as key people in this process, so we are keen to hear their thoughts and recommendations. I have looked through your main points. We see this as a collaborative effort. I am not surprised — I am not saying that you are throwing this back at us — that the structure of government is a factor in silo working. At times, you think there is a lack of agility in cross-departmental working, because we have a mandatory coalition, so, unlike a system where there is one party in Government, the parties in the Executive and the Opposition, as well as trying to work for the overall good of the country, try to find fault with one other, and that does not help.

My main point is that it is not about blaming the Civil Service. The public blame and criticise politicians just as much. We feel that your people are at that level to look up and down, so to speak, and see where improvements can be made. If things yet come to mind, we will welcome that. They have a key insight into how the system can be improved. Are there key things? I know that you have written a paper. What would you highlight, apart from the structure of government here?

Mr Murtagh: In driving forward transformation?

Mr Kingston: Yes.

Mr Murtagh: May I come back to one thing that you said, and then I will come on to that? You are absolutely right that senior officials are key to this, and, of course, there is going to be criticism. What I called out in my opening statement is the difference between accountability and unconstructive criticism. They can sit round tables like this and answer your questions, but we have to remember that officials cannot reply publicly. We have seen instances where, unfortunately, officials have been caught in the crossfire between different political perspectives. There is sometimes a lack of understanding of the role of officials when they come to Committees. They are not there to be a spokesperson for their Minister; they are there to answer questions about a policy issue. Accountability is absolutely important. Sometimes we stretch the bounds of what accountability means — stretching, at times, into invective, if I am honest.

I will come back to the matters of looking forward and the key to transformation. I was not saying that the structure of government is key to transformation; I was trying to say that the structure of government is part of the reality, and transformation has to reflect that reality. What I do not want to happen, because, again, I want to engage constructively with the Committee, is to get recommendations that run up against our constitutional framework and cannot go anywhere. We really want to drive forward substantive transformation. In my mind, there are a couple of things that I talked about. The graduate management programme is useful. We know that having a pipeline into future leaders is a risk. Deloitte did a 'State of the State' report on 30 senior public-sector leaders who denied promotions because, due to the responsibilities, it just was not worth it. It is a serious concern when people are saying, "I don't want to go up there", because some of the challenges for officials when interacting with the politics can be daunting for a lot of people. Also, frankly, when our Executive are collapsed, senior civil servants here take on an extra layer of responsibility compared with senior civil servants elsewhere. They are the last line of defence in ensuring that our public services are delivered.

So the graduate management programme is one area, and the workforce planning — the job families — is really important. That will allow us to be clear about what skill sets we have, what skill sets we do not have and what skill sets we will need in the future. It will also allow for more streamlined recruitment. Recruitment is a significant challenge, and I think that the workforce planning will open that up. Integr8 is a massive part of that. Gerry is here, and I know that, if Steve Aiken were here, I would probably be asked about integr8 and some concern about that, but we can only go on the information that we have, and that is a positive development.

The other thing, as I said in my opening speech, is digitalisation and AI. The Civil Service has low digital maturity. Frankly, that is a concern that needs to be tackled. It will not change overnight, but there needs to be an approach to it. Early in the year, I had a conversation with the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser about the vision for AI, and there was some really good stuff in that. My concern is that, when that is put forward into Departments, we will see issues with who is responsible for it. Is it going to be people and organisational development in HR? Is it Departments? Ultimately, I hope that we do not get to that position, because the guard rails are important for AI. Looking at a more strategic focus on digitalisation and AI is really important. There is real opportunity there. As I said, we did a report with the Fabian Society. It was based on UK civil servants, so the survey itself does not apply here, but the principle of there being a need for strategic vision in the deployment of AI and digital tools absolutely does apply. I was talking to a colleague before I came here about having a deposit of tools that Departments could apply for a licence to use and make sure that there is learning. AI can unlock efficiencies, but it is about doing it in the right way. There are massive concerns around bias, what data is being used, the algorithms and all that kind of stuff. That is absolutely right, so it has to be done carefully. That is why those guard rails are important.

So there is the workforce planning piece, the graduate management programme, digitalisation and AI, and, of course, making sure that terms and conditions in the Civil Service continue to be competitive so that we can attract people into the service from the private sector, although not just the private sector.

Mr Kingston: I have one more question. I want to ask about silo working. As I said, our structure of government reinforces that.

Mr Murtagh: Yes.

Mr Kingston: I do not know whether you are aware of the situation in the Civil Service elsewhere. Do most civil servants tend to stay in one Department? How easy is it to move between Departments, and what are the pros and cons of that? Maybe staying within a Department gives them a specialism and they get good knowledge, but does that restrict the ability to move? If people move around, they get more varied experience and bring different skills. Agility is important, bringing people together for shorter-term projects, rather than having somebody in one role who might say, "I will do only one role, and I have to stay in that role". People could be brought together for shorter-term projects, as would happen in the private sector, where there is that agility. I am interested in your views on that.

Mr Murtagh: Matthew, having been in the UK Civil Service, might know better than I do about this. The UK Civil Service is structured very differently, and pay is different in different Departments. There is probably a bit more internal competition within the Civil Service in the UK, because there are certain Departments that pay better than others at a similar grade. Obviously, it is a much bigger beast in terms of mobility. I think that internal mobility is absolutely critical — making sure that people do not get stuck. I know that one of the concerns raised around the strategic workforce planning and people being brought into the job families is that it might reinforce silo working. That is certainly a concern, but I think that, from the conversations that we are having with management side, it should break through that, because it will make it much clearer about the skills that are required in order to move. Therefore, if you are in an operational delivery role and want to move into a policy role, you will have a much greater idea, when we have the job families, of what you need to do to move into that role. I think that there is a concern about it, but actually I think that the workforce planning will absolutely help with that.

Brian, what you say about special projects and getting people to work or even step up is interesting, because one of the challenges that we know about is over-reliance on temporary promotions. On one hand, we are saying that we want to reduce the number of temporary promotions, but if we go down the route of having people act up for a specific project, we might see — I am not saying that it is wrong, but there is a concern that we might see temporary promotions go on an upward trajectory. Maybe the answer is that it should not be a downward or upward trajectory; it should be what is required, and maybe that is fair enough. Maybe one of the unintended consequences of doing that is on one of the other issues that we know is there, which is the amount of TPs. One of the areas that I think we need to look at is TPs on special projects. If somebody is on maternity leave or off sick, there is not much that you can do about that. It is the special projects where we need to be a little more — as I understand it, this is going to happen. We need to probe a little bit more what the special project is and how long it is going to last for. Again, as I said, the TP issue does create tension sometimes within teams, and that is not good either.

On agility, absolutely. Internal mobility is key. The size of the Civil Service means we probably could not function if we did not have proper internal mobility. We require people to move and to upskill themselves in different areas, and I think that the workforce planning will help with that.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Robert, for your presentation. Thanks for your opening comments as well. I think that it is really important that you said that, and I commend you for it.

You mentioned in passing the importance of diversity in the workplace. There is quite a lot of commentary in a general sense about the Civil Service being too woke. Take any day of the week, and people are being criticised for going to Pride or letting staff go to Pride or whatever diversity programmes they have. I presume that your FDA members may be facilitating some of those diversity programmes or groups. Does the FDA have any concern about that kind of language and focus on minority communities in the Civil Service?

Mr Murtagh: A core value of us as a union is respect for equality, diversity and inclusion. It is not just about it being the right to do, although I think that that is part of it. It is that we know that more diverse workplaces have better outcomes, and we want to see the Civil Service reflect the society that we serve. As I said, I spoke to one of our members who was seriously affected by what happened last week. That is a civil servant who has given decades of service and has raised their kids here. They are a public servant and have worked with the Civil Service and with Ministers to try to deliver better public services, yet the scenes last week made them feel like all of that was not worth anything.

It underlines why initiatives are really important, not just diversity and inclusion policies. As I said, it is not just about workplaces being free from discrimination. That is part of it. It is not a negative thing; it is not just "to be free from" discrimination. The workplace should be proactive in creating inclusive workplaces so that people can get on and deliver.

In the FDA, we have a number of initiatives. We have programmes to help bring people from ethnic minorities into leadership and women into leadership, which connect civil servants and women from minority backgrounds to come together and learn so that they can develop in their careers. It is a value that is important for us as a union, and it is important for the Civil Service. We welcome that the head of the Civil Service underlined that commitment last week in her message to officials.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Robert. I think that those programmes are really important. There is a narrative that such programmes are a waste of time and money. Obviously, I do not share that analysis. Do you hear that from FDA members who are concerned about some of the narratives around the diversity programmes? Is that something that you hear as an organisation?

Mr Murtagh: I cannot honestly say that I have had a specific conversation with a member about that. To be honest, Gerry, sometimes, civil servants simply expect some of the criticism from the public. Therefore, sometimes, they do not even raise it with me. Unfortunately, it is just seen as being part of the job, which is really unfortunate. I am doing my best to try to counter some of the narratives that are unfairly critical of the Civil Service. I have not had a specific conversation with a member on discussions around equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives. That is perhaps because those staff networks and initiatives are ongoing.

It is about creating an inclusive workplace. The experience of someone from an ethnic minority background going into work last Wednesday or Thursday would have been very different from the experience of somebody who was white, and who may not have been as fearful about the impact of the riots, so we have to understand that it has an impact on the workplace. That is why proactive initiatives are important to ensure that the workplace is not just free from discrimination but proactively encourages diversity and inclusion.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. As issues come through, I would be keen to find out about them, and I am sure that the Committee would as well.

You mentioned that the Civil Service should be or could be an attractive employer. Would you say that it is an attractive employer to people?

Mr Murtagh: I think that it is. One issue is that there are not a huge number of routes into the Civil Service. The graduate management programme is really important because, if people come out of university with, dare I say it, a politics degree, and they are looking for a job, many of those people would be motivated by public service. However, there is not really a route into the Civil Service because I do not think that the graduate management programme has met its full potential.

There are also issues in that certain professions in the Civil Service are not as competitive as they would be in the private sector. There are definitely issues around competitiveness in the Civil Service. However, overall, there are still really positive aspects of the Civil Service. There is the ability to be involved in public service and to deliver for people in Northern Ireland.

Undoubtedly, there are challenges. It comes back to the point about instability. Officials, especially those in senior positions, are sometimes on the receiving end of really unconstructive criticism. I mentioned the Deloitte report. Thirty of the senior public-sector professionals who were interviewed said that, because of the environment, they did not want to take on added responsibility. That is a real challenge. Asking whether or not it is attractive is too blunt an instrument. Can we do better? Absolutely, but it is an attractive proposition.

Mr Carroll: Thank you. I have two quick, final questions. There has been a lot of focus on sickness absence in the Civil Service. That is part of the inquiry, and we have had discussions about it in Committee. In a general sense, it is often used to kick civil servants. Saying, "You take more sick days than people in the private sector" is like cracking the whip. You talked about the pressure on your members and the stress that they are under. My understanding is that stress presents itself in higher sickness levels in the Civil Service. Is there anything else in that area that you want to expand on?

Mr Murtagh: We all want to see people in work. We want to see people being fulfilled in their working lives. We do not want to see people go off sick, but they do, and they often do so for the reason that you mentioned. The Audit Office report 'Managing Attendance in Central and Local Government' mentioned work-related stress. Work is being done to understand in more depth the reasons for sickness absence. It was mentioned in Committee last week that, until recently, there were issues with the occupational health service (OHS), and we could not get enough people into it. Obviously, that creates delays.

Our waiting lists are, unfortunately, higher across the board, which creates issues when people are getting ready to go back to work. If you have to wait weeks for a GP appointment or to see a consultant or whatever, you may be off for longer than your counterparts elsewhere would be. Again, there are issues beyond the control of the Civil Service that impact on sickness absence levels, but there is a new policy — it was mentioned last week — on supporting attendance, and there are positive aspects to that. There are some issues on which we may not see eye to eye, but we are working through the policy.

Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that people are fulfilled and that they do not go off sick, but we also need a service to be there for people when they are sick and to make sure that they are not punished further for going off sick.

Mr Carroll: Just a final question. I get a lot of correspondence, as I am sure other members do, about the slowness of recruitment into the Civil Service, usually at administrative officer (AO) level. Do FDA members raise that?

Mr Murtagh: Slowness of recruitment is not necessarily an issue at SCS level, because recruitment at that level does not involve the sort of large-volume competition that there is at other levels. However, members certainly raise concerns about how long it takes. In talking to perm sec members, for example, we hear that it is frustrating for them to sit with vacancies while they wait for the likes of HR Connect to do the large-volume competitions. They are therefore not as concerned about their own recruitment as they are about the impact of the slowness of recruitment on their teams and their Department. Everybody agrees that recruitment has been too slow, but Integr8 and some of the other changes are positive. The workforce planning piece will, hopefully, help streamline some of the recruitment so that it will be more targeted than the large-volume, general service competitions.

Mr Carroll: Thanks, Robert.

Miss Dolan: Thank you, Robert. I have only one question. You have highlighted the importance of multi-year budgets in strategic planning. Given that our Budget is heavily influenced by the British Government, what impact have austerity and the prioritisation of military spending had on Civil Service morale and its ability to deliver?

Mr Murtagh: I do not know whether I can answer that question.

Miss Dolan: I thought that I would try, anyway.

Mr Murtagh: Fair enough; you may as well try. That may be your perspective on it.

There is no doubt in this case that a lack of a Budget is a significant issue, and as the Fiscal Council highlighted, I have a real concern about the impact that it will have on our accounting officer members, who are going to have to have difficult conversations with Ministers. I completely understand that Ministers are under pressure to deliver as well. The public want delivery, but Ministers have obligations under 'Managing Public Money NI' that they cannot ignore either. I hope that we can get through it. My message to Ministers would be to understand that accounting officers have obligations as well and to work with them to get through any challenges. There is no doubt, however, that it is going to be a challenging time.

That is just reacting to what is happening now. We want to see proactiveness in the ability to deliver workforce planning or large infrastructure projects in the long term. I do not know whether the flashing red on Integr8 was because of the draft Budget, but I imagine that it is a risk. That is a perfect example of where the lack of agreement on a Budget — even a multi-year Budget — is undermining our ability to do genuine transformation.

Hopefully, I have avoided the political aspect of your question. [Laughter.]

Miss Dolan: You have, Robert. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Well handled. No one else has indicated that they wish to ask a question. Thank you, Robert, for covering such a wide range of areas. That was useful for the purposes of our inquiry. If we need to ask you anything else, I am sure that we will be able to do so in writing. I found your evidence really beneficial, and I am sure that others did, too. Thank you.