PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING
TO THE REPORT
WEDNESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2001
Members present:
Tony Wright, in the Chair
| Mr David Lepper | Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr Brian White
|
| Mr Neil Turner |
|
The Committee deliberated.
****
Draft Report (Special Advisers: Boon or Bane?), proposed
by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft
Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
A paragraph- (Mr Michael Trend) - brought
up and read, as follows:
"Despite much excellent work which has gone
into this report, the Committee's inquiry into special advisers
has been fundamentally compromised. The terms of reference of
the Committee set out in Standing Order No 146 are 'to consider
matters relating to the quality and standards of administration
provided by Civil Service departments, and other matters relating
to the Civil Service'. While Short Money is a proper area of investigation
by another House of Commons Select Committee, the Select Committee
on Public Administration has clearly and mischievously operated
outside its terms of reference in investigating Short Money. We
can only conclude that this was done by those motivated by narrow
party political considerations".- (Mr Michael Trend.)
Question put, That the paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraphs 1 to 11 agreed to.
Paragraph 12 read as follows:
"Lord Neill reported that 'almost all witnesses
made clear their view that special advisers were valuable components
of the machinery of government'. This conclusion reflected those
of a number of studies over more than thirty years and the evidence
we received did nothing to contradict it. None of our witnesses
dissented from this general view. A former adviser, William Plowden,
explained their value: they can 'vicariously multiply Ministers'
contacts with MPs, officials, outside interests and also with
other Ministers, including the Prime Minister; evaluate proposals
and advice coming up from officials; consult sources other than
those favoured by officials; act as an informal sounding board
for a Minister's ideas or anxieties'. Enthusiasts of this view
argue that special advisers form a useful counterweight to what
is sometimes perceived as civil service inertia, but even the
FDA, the civil service trades union representing the grades most
likely to feel threatened by advisers, were sanguine about their
use. In their view the arrangement brought general benefits all
round though there were 'occasional problems with individuals'.
This is a useful reminder that. Whatever the benefits in principle.
Much depends on the quality and contribution of individual advisers.
The FDA also explained how the existence of advisers can help
the smooth functioning of the civil service: 'Within the UK system,
Ministers inevitably need certain tasks undertaking that, were
they performed by civil servants, would take them across a political
line. In practice the current system allows those functions to
be undertaken by special advisers, thus preserving the impartiality
of the civil service. Moreover, a special adviser performing their
job effectively and reflecting the views of their Minister can
assist greatly in the smooth running of the Department'. Nor did
they think there was anything exceptional about the way ministers
in the present Government used advisers, other than that 'Some
of them had placed slightly more emphasis on the role of special
advisers in certain circumstances'. They even agreed that the
number per Minister might possibly be increased from two to three
without resulting in a cabinet system. Lord Lipsey reported
the alarm of one Permanent Secretary, on being told that
his incoming Minister proposed to work without a special adviser.
However, this general agreement on the value of advisers did not
prevent concerns being expressed about some aspects of the present
arrangements. We discuss these concerns shortly".
Amendments made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 21, after "Department"
to insert the words "although why 'party political' civil
servants, as opposed to party officials outside the Civil Service
are required for his task has never been satisfactorily explained".
-(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 13 and 14 agreed to.
Paragraph 15 read, as follows:
"We believe that much of the criticism of the
use of special advisers, concentrating as it does on their numbers,
is misdirected. If they really improve the machinery of government,
then it is clearly sensible to have as many as the system requires.
If they are ineffective, or even damaging, then it is sensible
to cull them. The key question is not how many there are, but
what contribution they make to effective government. When this
is established, the further questions concern the framework and
rules within which they operate. Although we accept the general
evidence on the value of advisers, it would be useful to have
more particular evidence. Unfortunately, because of the limitations
on the information available, it has not been possible for us
to explore this as fully as we would have liked".
An Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from
beginning to word "although" in line 6 and insert the
words "the main criticism of the current crop of advisers
centres first on the highly party political nature of much of
their activity and secondly on the danger that the sheer number
of advisers so close to the most senior ministers in the government
could compromise the traditional advisory role played by the neutral
civil service". -(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 8 to leave out
from the word "evidence" to the end of the paragraph
and insert the words "unfortunately, because of the limited
amount of information provided by the Executive, and its refusal
to allow special advisers to give evidence, it has not been possible
for us to explore the role of special advisers as fully as we
would have liked". -(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 16 agreed to.
Paragraph 17 read.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the
Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr David Lepper | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner | Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Brian White |
|
Paragraphs 18 to 21 agreed to.
Paragraph 22 read, as follows:
"It may be that the work of advisers has changed
somewhat since it was undertaken by the former advisers we interviewed
(Dr Plowden, Lord Blackwell and Lord Lipsey). Certainly the FDA
thought it had, particularly in respect of the 'work done by Alastair
Campbell and his team'. However, our inability to take evidence
from current advisers made it difficult for us to assess to what
extent the role may have changed. This has made our work more
difficult and less complete than it should have been. In the case
of No 10 Downing Street, where the greatest number of advisers
is to be found, the fact that the Committee's invitation both
to the Prime Minister and to the Chief of Staff have been declined
make it especially difficult for us to form a view about the role
of advisers at the centre of government.
Amendment proposed, in linr 1, to leave out the words
"It may be that the work of advisers has changed somewhat"
and insert the words "The work of advisers has changed".
-(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 23 to 29 agreed to.
Paragraph 30 read, as follows:
"We are not convinced that a formal cap on the
total number of advisers, as recommended by the Neill Committee,
is the most sensible way to proceed. We believe that a better
approach would be for Parliament to vote a sum of money for special
advisers (as it does for Short Money). It would then be for a
government to decide how it wanted to make best use of this allocation
(for example between No 10 and the Departments, between particular
Departments, and between policy advisers and political advisers).
The present rules do not apply at all to No 10. Our approach would
achieve the objective of limitation while allowing more flexibility
in the deployment of special advisers and securing more accountability
to Parliament. We therefore recommend that the limitation of
special advisers should be governed by the sum voted by Parliament
for this purpose".
Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "is"
to insert the word "necessarily".-(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out
from the word "advisers" to the second word "It"
in line 4.-(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out
from the word "recommend" to the end of the paragraph
and insert the words "consideration should be given to limiting
the number of special advisers by the sum voted by Parliament
for this purpose".-(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out
the word "number" and insert the word "limitation".-(The
Chairman.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr David Lepper | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner | Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Brian White |
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 31 to 33 agreed to.
Paragraph 34 read, as follows:
"Moreover, it is not always possible to distinguish
between political and policy advisers. Although evidence suggests
that where two advisers are in post there is a tendency to use
one for political and the other for policy advice, as Dr Clarke
indicated, when we asked each Department whether this was so the
replies suggested that it is not invariable practice. Professor
King agreed that there was 'overlap between the roles of providing
policy and political advice'. Although the distinction between
political and policy advisers is clearly a useful one, in practice
there are policy-skilled political advisers and politically-informed
policy advisers. It is for the government of the day, and for
individual Ministers, to decide what particular mix of skills
they require. Our recommendation (paragraph 53) would better enable
this to be achieved".
Amendment proposed, in 9, to leave out from the word
"require" to the end of the paragraph.-(Mr Andrew
Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 35 to 39 agreed to.
Paragraph 40 read, as follows:
"Special advisers assist Ministers at public
expense. Opposition parties represented in the House of Commons
receive financial assistance for the conduct of their parliamentary
business. This money is known as 'Short Money' after the Leader
of the House who introduced it. A connection between special advisers
and Short Money was drawn first by Lord Neill, who said 'one of
the things I had been thinking about myself was whether you could
have a type of Short Money scheme for special advisers'. Lord
Lipsey offered a proposal: ' There is money for the Opposition,
Short Money... what I think is uncomfortable about the present
situation is that special advisers, and here I really refer to
the political breed of special advisers, are paid just like they
were any other civil servant out of the same pocket without any
discrimination. What I would like to see is, as it were, a vote
of Short Money for Government where it is not very much money
but it would be subject to proper parliamentary control and scrutiny
and would send a signal to people that these people are something
really quite different from the normal Civil Service'. We decided
to investigate further the suggested analogy between expenditure
on Short Money and special advisers, the cost of each now being
broadly equivalent since the Government's substantial increase
in Short Money funding for opposition parties which the House
agreed in May 1999. As a matter of courtesy, since the matter
affects the House, we wrote to the Speaker, and the correspondence
is printed as Annex 3 to the Minutes of Evidence".
Amendment proposed, in line 14, at the end to add
the words "notwithstanding the fact that consideration of
Short Money is clearly outwith the terms of reference of our Committee,
which are set out in Standing Order 146 and which reads "to
consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration
provided by Civil Service Departments, and other matters relating
to the Civil Service.""-(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 41 agreed to.
Paragraph 42 read, as follows:
"The representatives of those parties who gave
us evidence on 15th November did not see a parallel between Short
Money and special advisers. Ben Williams, for the Liberal Democrats
said: 'I am not convinced that there is a parallel between the
increase in the number of special advisers and the funding available
to the parties through Short Money'. Margaret McDonagh, for the
Labour Party, said: 'It is not something that we have debated
but I support the position of both special advisers and the allocation
of Short Money to opposition parties. However, I do not think
they are in any way linked. Special advisers are there to give
political advice to Cabinet Ministers'. David Prior MP, for the
Conservatives, specifically denying the suggestion that special
advisers and Short Money could be equated, said: 'The purpose
of Short Money is to enable the opposition party to try and level
the playing field against the government so that we have some
real effort to hold them to account, given the tremendous resources
that they have with press officers and the like' and 'Short Money
... is nothing to do with special advisers. Special advisers are
in addition to that."
Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "adviser"
to insert the words "all three specifically denied that special
advisers and Short Money could be equated".-(Mr Andrew
Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Another Amendment proposed, line 9, to leave out
from the word "Conservatives" to the word "said"
in line 10.-(Mr Andrew Tyrie).
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 43 agreed to.
Paragraph 44 read, as follows:
"The payment of Short Money is governed by Resolution
of the House. The latest Resolution, passed in May 1999, increased
the overall amount payable to £4,863,000, an increase of
270 per cent and altered the payment basis. Whereas previously
it had been necessary for the parties to put in a claim, payment
is now made by the Fees Office provided that within nine months
after the end of the financial year a certificate from the firm
of accountants appointed by the party is received stating that
'the financial assistance received and claimed was expended on
expenses incurred exclusively in connection with the party's parliamentary
business'. If no certificate were received, no more money would
be paid. The National Audit Office scrutinises all certificates
as part of its annual audit of the Members' Salaries etc Vote
Appropriation Account, but does not take its audit beyond this.
The Clerk of the House and the Head of the Fees Office made it
clear that they were bound by the terms of the Resolution of the
House and could not go beyond it".
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words
"to £4,863,000, an increase of 270 per cent" and
insert the words "by 270 per cent (the cost in 1999-2000
was £4,863,000 with a maximum for 2000-2001 of £5,012,000)".
-(The Chairman.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr David Lepper | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner | Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Brian White |
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 45 to 49 agreed to.
Paragraph 50 brought up and read, as follows:
"We suggested to the political parties that
it might be appropriate to publish the accounts of how they spent
Short Money. All agreed in principle. We note that the Official
Opposition and its auditors were unable to give a categorical
assurance that its Short Money funding was used exclusively for
parliamentary business. We have further concerns that, after an
approach by the Party to the Fees Office, a description of parliamentary
business was arrived at, without consideration by the House, which
seems to allow more latitude in how this money is spent. In particular
we are not clear how 'communicating alternative policies to those
of the Government of the day' (which is permitted under the expanded
description) is different from 'political campaigning' (which
is not)".
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from
the word "principle" to the end of line 6.-(Mr Andrew
Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 51 agreed to.
Motion made, to leave out paragraphs 52 and 53.-(Mr
Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the paragraphs stand part of the
Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr David Lepper | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner | Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Brian White |
|
Motion made, to leave out paragraphs 54 and 55.-(Mr
Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the paragraphs stand part of the
Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr David Lepper | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner | Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Brian White |
|
Paragraphs 56 to 65 agreed to.
Paragraph 66 read, as follows:
"We share the reservations about special advisers
exercising executive powers. It was meant to be a helpful development
(just as the shift of the Chief Press Secretary from being a civil
servant to being a special adviser could be seen as serving the
cause of honesty) but it has unhelpful implications for established
relations within government. The role of special advisers should
add to the effectiveness of these relations, not compromise them.
Not only should the experiment not be extended but the existing
arrangements should be reviewed".
An Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out
the word "reviewed" and insert the word "abandoned".
- (Mr Andrew Tyrie)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 67 to 74 agreed to.
Paragraph 75 read, as follows:
"In Session 1997-98 we produced a Report on
'The Work of the Government Information and Communication Service
(GICS)'. In that report we examined concerns that had been expressed
as to whether the Prime Minister's Chief Press Secretary had been
using his office to forward the interests of the Government in
a way inappropriate to someone paid from public funds as a special
adviser. We found no evidence to substantiate this at that time
and nor was any submitted when we took further evidence from the
service in May last year. In our 1997-98 Report we said 'it is
difficult to avoid some advantage naturally accruing to the party
in power from the use of public money to present the Government's
policies in their best light'. That remains the intractable fact.
We note that the FDA told us in the course of this inquiry that
it was not a completely new concept having a special adviser in
the role of Chief Press Secretary and that it was not necessarily
inappropriate to do so. Whether it is wise for a government to
fill the post in this way is another matter. We welcomed then
and welcome now Sir Richard's repeated assurances that he remained
vigilant to ensure that advisers do not overstep the mark, but
we note that the GICS handbook says little or nothing about the
Service's relation to advisers and recommend that the next
edition should set out the relationship in more detail. Tensions
in this area are inevitable, which is why continuing vigilance
is appropriate in policing the boundary line".
An Amendment proposed, in line 6, after the word
"year" to insert the words "Since then, Alastair
Campbell has been reprimanded for ignoring Sir Richard's guidelines,
given to this Committee in oral evidence on the limits to his
party political activity". -(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
An Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 9, after the
word "fact" to insert the words "particularly with
respect to parliamentary activity, the imbalance which Short Money
was designed largely to address when it was introduced".
-(Mr Andrew Tyrie)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 76 to 79 agreed to.
Paragraph 80 read, as follows:
"The distinction between an adviser on duty
and an adviser off-duty is a fine one to draw, especially in the
context of a 24-hour news culture. It is hard to see how an individual
could erect sufficient Chinese walls between what he or she knows
and does through current employment and through other means. Mr
Campbell's intention to resign his employment as soon as a general
election is called to work full time for the Labour Party, then
return to his post in the event of a Labour victory, is one example
of the difficulties. The question is whether there could be a
better system. We asked Lord Neill whether it might be possible
to distinguish between the work done by advisers for the government
and work done for the party and pay them pro rata. He said that
he did not know what each of the advisers in post during his inquiry
actually did, not having seen their individual contracts, so he
did not know how much party work they did but he thought that,
for practical reasons, such a scheme would be hard to implement.
He said 'I would need to see more evidence as to how it could
be done, how it would be workable, how you could partition a day
of a special adviser, so much was party political and so much
was not. The telephone would ring: "Am I allowed to take
another call today? Is that a party political call?" I am
not making a joke of it, but it would be incredibly difficult
to draw a line, a division such as you suggest'. Such difficulties
are inescapable. They would, of course, disappear if advisers
were paid out of party funds, but this would be at odds with our
view that policy and political advice to Ministers is a proper
activity that is appropriately funded by the public purse. Moreover,
other difficulties would arise. Tensions and boundary disputes
are inevitable, which is why proper policing and codes of conduct
are important".
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the words
"a fine one to draw" and insert the words "little
short of absurd".-(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 3
|
| Mr Michael Trend | Mr David Lepper
|
| Mr Andrew Tyrie | Mr Neil Turner
|
| Mr Brian White
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 81 and insert
the following paragraph
"Special advisers can make a positive contribution
to good government. They can also prejudice the neutrality of
the civil service and provide an unacceptable party political
advantage to the governing party. Both the number of advisers
and the breadth of their party political and other activity are
an increasing cause for concern. Lord Neill's recommendation for
a Code of Conduct is an important start. The Code of Conduct would
enable clear 'rules of engagement' to be provided where advisers
are assuming functions previously performed by civil servants.
Special advisers' contracts should be consonant with the Code
of Conduct and, where they deviate from the model contract that
is already published, put into the public domain. The responsibility
for enforcing the contract should lie with Permanent Secretaries
answerable to Select Committees in Parliament. Special advisers
who are identified as doing a considerable amount of highly party
political work should be paid from party funds and not the taxpayer.
There will always be difficulties of definition and in policing
the line but the widespread perception that over the last decade
advisers have done an increasing amount of highly partisan work
at tax payers' expense is not only constitutionally questionable
but unacceptable to a wider public. The doubling of advisers in
Whitehall since 1997 and, in particular, the tripling of the number
of advisers at the heart of the government in 10 Downing Street,
has made action all the more necessary. This is what the recommendations
of this Report are intended to achieve". -(Mr Andrew Tyrie.)
Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the
Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr David Lepper | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner | Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Brian White |
|
Motion made and Question put, That the report, as
amended, be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 2
|
| Mr David Lepper | Mr Michael Trend
|
| Mr Neil Turner | Mr Andrew Tyrie
|
| Mr Brian White |
|
Ordered, That the Chairman
do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions
of Standing Order No 134 (Select Committees (Reports)) be applied
to the Report.
Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the
Report.
Several memoranda were ordered to be reported to
the House.
|
