Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
THURSDAY 27 OCTOBER 2005
MR HOWELL
JAMES CBE
Q20 Julie Morgan: You said earlier
that there was a need to improve the Government's message in a
credible way to the public. I want to ask you about one of the
hot topics of the week, which is the way the Government's policy
on smoking has been communicated to the public. Obviously it has
been a week of mixed messages with leaks from cabinet sub-committees;
a very confusing week which has resulted in a bad press for the
Government and general disarray all round. I wondered if you saw
any of that to be in your responsibility. Do you see that you
should have—or did have—a role in this week's events
on that key government policy?
Mr James: I think what you have
witnessed is a vigorous debating cabinet about a developing policy.
I do not see that Government Communications per se could have
changed whatever has developed over the last week, but I do think
that the challenge for Government Communications going forward
is to identify how we communicate the policy which has been arrived
at and those who will be affected by it.
Q21 Julie Morgan: So in the events
of the week you see that as an entirely political matter; you
do not see any role for yourself.
Mr James: Not personally and not
directly. I am not involved every week in the day to day breaking
news stories. That is very much the responsibility of the Director
of Communications at Number 10, David Hill. He is, so to speak,
the editor in chief and I am the managing editor.
Q22 Julie Morgan: So you see David
Hill as having a role in the events of the week.
Mr James: The Director of Communications
at Number 10 is in the driving seat in terms of unfolding political
news stories; of course he is. I am not in that driving seat.
My task is a more managerial task, to look across the piece of
government communications and attempt to build a more effective
and more professional cadre of people to take communications forward
to the public, and to look at all that government is doing and
make sure that we address the public in the most effective and
credible way so that they know and understand what government
is doing, how it impacts upon their life and how they can effectively
access whatever information or facts and figures that they may
need from government.
Q23 Julie Morgan: You see your role
as a much more managerial role, not involved in presenting government
policies in a more credible way.
Mr James: I do think that government
policies need to be communicated effectively but I think you are
highlighting a very particular and unfolding circumstance which
news reporters have commented is a bit of a one-off.
Q24 Julie Morgan: It is a very important
one-off and certainly the press that the Government is getting
about it this morning and over the last week has been pretty bad.
Mr James: The policy, as I understand
it, has been settled and I heard the Secretary of State for Health
on the radio this morning setting out clearly where they had got
to.
Q25 Julie Morgan: To be clear, do
you think there is any role in this discussion that has gone on
this week for any person in the communications field?
Mr James: Of course there is.
You are asking me about my day to day role; I am not involved
in day to day unfolding news stories. I think we have to be clear
that departments take the lead; they represent their ministers'
policies and activities. Number 10 steers the editorial machine
through David Hill. These are long standing conventions across
the government communications function and that is how it is established
and that is how it works. I am interested in ensuring that we
have the right people doing these jobs, that they know and understand
what their tasks are; that there are no opportunities for confusion
around the issues that your Chairman and I were just discussing.
I do think there is a role for effective communications of these
policies to the public and that is where the government communications
machine has to step up to the plate.
Q26 Julie Morgan: Do you have a view
on the events of this week?
Mr James: The events of this week,
it seems to me, were cabinet government taking place.
Q27 Paul Flynn: I think most people
would regard what has happened in the last few days as an edifying
spectacle of giant egos fighting like ferrets in the sack about
a matter—a health reform—of enormous importance about
reducing the effects of this cursed disease, lung cancer. You
have described it as a vigorous debate on developing policy. Are
those words taken from the Alastair Campbell book of spin?
Mr James: Not that I am aware
of. I have not read an Alastair Campbell book of spin.
Q28 Paul Flynn: Do you think there
is a gulf between the mealy-mouthed words that you used about
these events of the last few days, which have shocked a great
deal of people because they see this self-indulgent row between
individuals of the cabinet as distant from the need to reduce
the deaths from cancer, but you come out with a honeyed phrase
which disguises the reality of what is taking place. Do you think
there is a gulf on what the whole argument is about, about your
presentation of it as just dignified development of policy, which
is nothing of the sort; it is just a nasty row between individuals?
The gulf is still there; you are far from the reality of the situation
in your presentation of it.
Mr James: I am sorry; I am merely
trying to set out what I think the role of the Permanent Secretary,
Government Communications is in term of the task I am required
to do. My tasks are, as I hope I set out in my letter to the Committee,
to look across Government Communications as a discipline and as
a profession and to help raise the standards of those who work
within it. Clearly that is my primary role. I am not involved
in the day to day unfolding of political stories. I am trying
to set out the difference between my role and the Director of
Communications at Number 10 and the role of directors of communications
within departments representing their departmental interests.
Q29 Paul Flynn: Do you think your
complementary role with David Hill is working and can it work?
You did say at the start about the change that took place when
David Hill came in. Was the change not more because Alastair Campbell
left?
Mr James: That is for others to
judge. David does a very professional job. He is an extremely
effective operator; I work extremely well with him. We have a
clear understanding of our different but complementary roles.
Q30 Paul Flynn: How do they work
out in practice? Have the changes not really meant the difference
that was there before with Number 10 really being in charge of
the communications are still perpetuated with David Hill? What
is the difference?
Mr James: The Phillis Review identified
that in effect all roads led to the Director of Communications
at Number 10 who was both the special adviser but who, through
the special powers he had, was also accountable to employing civil
servants and controlling budget. One of the analyses in the Phillis
Review was that this was contributing to confusion between governmental
communication and political communication. There was a sense that
this needed to be more clearly separated. As I set out earlier,
the Prime Minister accepted those findings in the Phillis Review
and appointed, after Alastair's departure, David Hill as Director
of Communications—but as a special adviser and without the
special powers that Alastair had held at Number 10— and
appointed a Permanent Secretary, Government Communications to
look across the piece to represent the Civil Service communicators
within departments and to look across the piece at how we can
improve how that discipline is undertaken across government departments.
My main focus is to try to raise standards within government departments.
Q31 Paul Flynn: I do not know whether
you think the present political situation and government stand
is distorted by legacy issues and the need for the supremacy of
so-called legacy issues? Is that a matter of dispute or difference
between the emphasis you put on issues by yourself as a director
of general government policy and the uppermost need of Number
10 giving attention to those legacy issues?
Mr James: It is for the government
communications machine to help present government policy as agreed
as effectively as possible to the different audiences that are
impacted by it. I think you are asking me about the formulation
and decisions about policy making which are for politicians.
Q32 Chairman: You said last October
that you were "still in the foothills" in terms of securing
power back from Number 10. Are you still in the foothills?
Mr James: No, I do not believe
so. As you know, it was a new role, it was a new position; I was
an outsider coming from outside government into the Civil Service
so I think there was a lot of learning and a need for me to go
round and talk to a lot of people and establish relationships
and work out how this function could operate. I think that quote
relates to that period where I was on a voyage of discovery around
the system talking to colleagues and understanding what they expected
of this role, understanding what they did and then building what
I hope was an effective prescription for what I could do.
Q33 Chairman: Is the peak now in
sight?
Mr James: Yes.
Q34 Julia Goldsworthy: I want to
ask you about some things which have been in the press recently
as well about advertising. Just so I understand, does all departmental
advertising go through the Central Office of Information?
Mr James: Yes, at the moment.
Q35 Julia Goldsworthy: All departmental
advertising?
Mr James: The Department for Transport
has its own roster of agencies so they choose which creative organisation
is going to help them with their campaign, but they have come
into the group that looks at the cross-government buying of media
so that they are party to the bulk discounts that the COI obtains
in terms of buying air-time. So all departments in the main do
now, yes.
Q36 Julia Goldsworthy: In terms of
the commissioning of adverts, is all that done through the Central
Office of Information or do some departments do that independently?
Mr James: Depending on the scale
of the operation in each department and therefore the level of
resource they give it—the kind of skill sets they have and
the people inside their marketing divisions—they will do
more or less. The COI operates a reasonably flexible system where
they are able to help a smaller department that does not have
the expertise by doing a lot more of that, whereas with a larger
department they might do more of it themselves.
Q37 Julia Goldsworthy: Does that
not make it difficult for you to be able to control spin, for
example, if it is not coming through your department, it is being
done individually?
Mr James: The COI is a separate
entity. The COI is a non-ministerial department that reports direct
to John Hutton. The chief executive of the COI is the accounting
officer for that in his own right. Where the COI and I work together
is on cross-government co-ordination issues where I feel—and
they feel—that there is a need for more joined-up behaviour.
That is certainly the way we are taking it forward. The COI itself
has its own reporting lines. That which it is appropriate for
the COI to advertise is pretty clearly set out in the guidelines
that we published and that are on our website, which make it clear
that there must be a proper need for it, it should not be done
in a polemic or political way and it has to be done in a way that
offers value for money. In the main, departments seek advertising
support for programmes so the Department for Transport in pursuit
of safer driving, not drinking and driving, will bid for an advertising
budget to support part of its programme. It is for them to get
that budget from the Treasury, get that approved and they then
spend it. The COI's role is to make sure that that is properly
co-ordinated and best value for money is achieved in the sense
that they go to the agencies that government think can do this
sort of work well and have a track record of delivery in this
area, and also making sure they are getting the cross-government
value for money bulk buying contracts. It is each department that
bids for advertising money in support of programmes that they
are trying to deliver.
Q38 Julia Goldsworthy: How do you
make the judgment call whether something is simply implementing
government policy or whether it is pushing a party line? I will
use top up fees as one example. How do you make a judgment about
whether that is pushing a party line? In December 2003 there was
a radio advert to try to prevent students from being dissuaded
to go to university because of top up fees saying, "You cough
up zip till you are blinging". This was before this legislation
had even been before Parliament. I know this is before your remit.
Mr James: Was this a COI campaign?
Q39 Julia Goldsworthy: You have an
over-arching role to bring the death of spin as I understood it
in your opening remarks.
Mr James: That is one way of describing
the role, yes. I am sorry I do not know this individual case but
in terms of the guidance that departments have about what is appropriate
for them to spend money on, it is quite clear that it has to be
a recognised government programme and merits that kind of support.
The bid has to go through the department to get the money for
such support as part of its programme.
| 
