6 ADVISERS AND 'TSARS'
92. So far we have focused our attention on ministers.
However, another way in which government has brought in expert
or additional viewpoints is through appointment to an advisory
role. This is usually done through appointment as a special adviser.
However, there has been a relatively recent trend to bring in
so-called 'tsars'. In the British context, the term 'tsar' originated
in the NHS, [83]
with the appointment of National Directors and National Clinical
Directors to oversee the implementation of a national service
framework or major clinical or service strategy. The first use
of the term in a wider political context was the appointment in
1998 of Keith Hellawell, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police,
as an adviser to the Home Secretary on drugs policy.
93. The term 'tsar' and associated terms such as
advocate, ambassador or champion are primarily media-driven terms.
Attempts to create a clear and consistent definition covering
these terms are therefore unlikely to be successful. However,
we are interested in a specific type of 'tsar' appointment - that
of an individual who has a high profile in a particular field,
and who is asked by a minister personally to co-ordinate or promote
('champion' in officialese) a particular area of policy. Such
appointments are different from other advisory roles in two respects
- first the direct appointment by the minister or Prime Minister
and second a degree of public personal identification with a particular
policy or piece of work which would not normally be expected from
a civil servant or special adviser.[84]
94. Given the problems of definition, it is not surprising
that there is no comprehensive list of 'tsars' in government.
Written evidence from academics who have studied this issue distinguish
between those 'tsars' who hold formal posts within government
or other public bodies and those who are appointed informally
through a minister's discretion. The extent to which these two
categories blur into each can be surprising. The post of a National
Clinical Director might sound like a formal post with a rigorous
appointment process, but one appointee was quoted as saying "the
fact of the matter is that I bumped into Alan Milburn [the then—Health
Secretary] on the train".[85]
95. In response to our request, the Cabinet Secretary
produced a list of government appointed 'tsars', envoys, champions
and ambassadors.[86]
However, the list excluded people who have been appointed to NDPBs,
task forces, ad hoc advisory groups, short-term reviews or to
provide independent advice on a contract basis. As a result it
either excludes or would have excluded some of those who have
become well known as 'tsars' - such as Louise Casey, former head
of the Government's Respect Task Force.
96. Another related problem is that the work which
'tsars' undertake is often opaque. Lord Darzi admitted that he
had faced some uncertainty about what his post-ministerial role
as an "Ambassador for Health and Life Sciences" actually
involved.[87] There was
so much confusion around Lord Sugar's appointment as Enterprise
Champion that for a while it was believed he was to be a minister.
Writing about National Clinical Directors, Professor Smith observed
that "'tsars' carry out very different functions and may
not even be clear themselves about their status".[88]
97. Jonathan Powell argued that 'tsars' had two advantages.
They could be effective at bringing together disparate parts of
government to work on a particular area of policy and also brought
an external viewpoint to a policy issue.[89]
However, he had to admit that when it came to taking their ideas
and turning them into practical policies, 'tsars' had not been
immensely successful:
the problem is, if they do not have a budget,
they do not actually have control of it, the departments will
continue to insist on their particular bugbears and you will not
actually achieve much.[90]
98. This view was reflected by other witnesses, who
stressed the differences between working under a minister and
being a minister. Lord West contrasted his experience as a minister
with that of being First Sea Lord:
[as First Sea Lord] one could debate and talk
about things but you were very constrained in what you could actually
do, because of control of money and things like that…[whereas]
as a minister you can actually deliver things[91]
Lord Darzi agreed:
I asked the Prime Minister whether I should be
appointed as an adviser, and he was very reluctant to do that.
His explanation at the time was that you needed to be a minister
to make things happen and, in retrospect, I could not agree more
with him.[92]
99. This distinction between the ability of advisers
and ministers to achieve things is entirely right. As Lord Adonis
argued, an adviser's job is to advise, a minister's job is to
take decisions, to be responsible for the direction of and implementation
of policy.[93] This begs
the question as to whether 'tsars' are bound by collective responsibility:
do they speak for the government or themselves? It also makes
the effectiveness of 'tsars' difficult to evaluate. So why bring
in eminent people from outside if they are not able to make a
real impact? As the point was made to us in written evidence:
if these appointments are to be more than window-dressing,
the appointees need to be enabled to exercise influence that is
commensurate with their expertise. They are likely to be critical
of existing policies and practices, and this is to be welcomed,
even if it is uncomfortable.[94]
100. In the absence of a clear public sense of what
the role of a particular 'tsar' is, and how their effectiveness
can be measured, it would be easy to conclude that many of the
appointments of 'tsars' are simply "the loan of their reputation,
even celebrity, to endorse established policy."[95]
Looking at the list of appointments supplied by the Cabinet Secretary
there is a certain lack of coherence which does little to dispel
this impression. For example, dance is the only physical activity
to be "championed" in its own right and it appears on
the list twice. The Department for Culture Media and Sport sponsors
a National Youth Dance Champion whilst the Department for Health
sponsors a Dance Champions Group (set up just over a year later)
of which the former person is not a member.[96]
101. At present there is little transparency concerning
the informal and ad hoc appointments made by government to lead
on, review or promote particular policies. Job titles are often
uninformative, appointment processes informal and the work undertaken
opaque and not clearly linked to results. The allegation that
some of these posts might have been created for the sake of a
press notice may be unfair, but it is difficult to refute without
greater transparency.
102. We recommend that the Cabinet Office continue
to maintain a list of such appointments and that guidelines should
be issued to clarify how far 'tsars' speak for themselves or for
the Government. Where 'tsars' do not speak for the Government
they should be able to express their own views freely.
103. We further recommend that each department
produce, in its Departmental Annual Report, a brief account of
the work undertaken by such appointees during the year and the
support from officials they have received. Finally, we recommend
that upon appointing such an individual the appointing minister
should write to the Chairman of the relevant select committee
giving details of what will be expected from the appointee, their
responsibilities and the support they will receive from the department.
83 The use of the term to refer to prominent government
advisers originated in the United States. Back
84
Ev 42 Back
85
Ev 42 Back
86
Ev 41 Back
87
Q 105 Back
88
Ev 42 Back
89
Q 11-12 Back
90
Q 11 Back
91
Q 75 Back
92
Q 79 Back
93
Q 73 Back
94
Ev 44 Back
95
Ev 44 Back
N 96
Ev 42 Back
|
