5 Civil Service support to political
parties in post-election discussions
68. Following the result of the 2010 election, the
then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, offered Civil Service
support for negotiations to form a government to all political
parties on the same basis. In the event, however, the civil service
provided only very limited support for the negotiations that took
place. The support provided to the parties is subject to the approval
of the Prime Minister[51]
and we were told by the Cabinet Secretary that after the 2015
election "he [the Prime Minister] has agreed in principle
that the Civil Service should play the same role in 2015, if it
is needed, as was played in 2010."[52]
69. The current Cabinet Secretary outlined what he
thought the role of the civil service should be during the period
of uncertainty after a general election:
from my perspective, as head of the civil service,
the civil service's role is to support the incumbent Government
of the day in the essential Government of Britain, but otherwise
to remain completely impartial. In the Government formation, the
civil service's role is to be providing logistical support, to
provide factual advice, but not to try to sway the coalition discussions
in one direction or another. We are impartial when it comes to
that because that is an issue for the elected politicians.[53]
How best to facilitate discussions
70. Given the UK has what the Institute for Government
describes as an "unordered process of Government formation"[54]
there are no rules parties that must follow when they enter into
negotiations. In a situation after the election where there is
no overall majority in the House, it might not become clear immediately
which parties will be involved in trying to form a government
and what that government might look like.
71. It has been debated whether the civil service
should simply supply factual information to political parties
or offer advice on proposed policies. Professor Hazell suggests
that the civil service could offer the following support:
· Provision
of accommodation and refreshments;
· Note takers,
who can summarise the issues which have been agreed and what remains
outstanding;
· The provision
of factual information;
· The provision
of advice.[55]
He does, however, recognise that "The last item
is controversial: most commentators would prefer the civil service
not to go beyond answering requests for factual information."[56]
72. When we questioned the Cabinet Secretary on what
type of information they would supply to parties to the negotiations,
he told us:
[T]he advice provided should be essentially of
a factual nature, rather than a policy advice nature, if I can
put it like that. We would be very happy to supply information
on the cost of something or the legislative requirements of something
or the timetable required to do something in practical terms.[57]
73. Professor Hazell argued that any logistical and
factual support should come with some advice, otherwise negotiating
parties might not know in reality how practical their policies
would be implement. He said:
I think it is in the public interest that the
negotiators be as fully informed as possible about the different
issues that they are negotiating on. […] Issues will arise
where the negotiators want to ask: what will this cost? How long
will this take? Will we run into legal difficulties? Those sound
like factual questions and they can be put in that way but, as
I said in my submission, to get sensible answers, the answers
will come, I hope, couched with a bit of advice.[58]
The Cabinet Secretary remained reluctant to give
out policy advice as it could lead to the civil service looking
like they favoured the policy of one party over another. He told
us:
[A]s soon as you get sucked into a discussion
not about factual advice but about policy advice, then indeed,
you are effectively being asked to provide advice against policies
as well as in favour of them. I think you could easily find yourself
in a position where your position could be caricatured as favouring
one party or one coalition over another, and that would not be
the right place for the civil service, which has to be impartial,
has to be able to serve Governments of whatever complexion, and
should not be criticisable for favouring one coalition or another.
That would be totally against our ethos as a civil service.[59]
74. If there is no conclusive result to the election,
we do not believe that Prime Ministerial approval should be required
for civil service support to post-election discussions. If there
is agreement among parties involved in the negotiations that they
require support it should be given. The next version of the Cabinet
Manual should be updated to reflect this view.
75. From the outset the civil service should be
ready to provide factual information to all parties involved in
Government formation negotiations.
76. To avoid any impression that the civil service
might favour one party's policy over another, any advice to the
individual parties should be given on a confidential basis.
Impartial advice on equal basis
77. If one party in negotiations asks for information
on a specific issue, the question arises of whether or not that
advice should be offered as a matter of course to all of the other
parties involved. Robert Hazell argued that:
The key safeguard is that any information or
advice is supplied to all the parties involved in that set of
negotiations; and that the parties know when they request the
information that it will be shared on that basis.[60]
78. According to Dr Catherine Haddon from the Institute
for Government, a different approach was taken during the 2010
negotiations. She told us that the guidance issued by the civil
service:
sets out what should happen in the event that
one party asks for a piece of factual information on policy X.
If another party does not ask for that same piece of information,
it does not get it, nor does it even know that the first party
has asked for it. If both do ask for it, they get the same piece
of advice, supposedly. There is clearly an expectation there that
they would have quite strict convention and guidance around what
constitutes advice.[61]
79. The Cabinet Secretary did not think that issuing
unsolicited information to all parties would be suitable. He said:
I do not think we would want in any sense to
be leading the witness in any way by suggesting, "Here is
some information you have not asked for but we think you ought
to have". We are there to provide advice on request.
Of course, if it turns out that six out of seven
parties have all asked for the same thing, then conceivably it
might make sense just to produce a general note, but we are talking
very hypothetically now. Basically, our task would be to provide
advice of a factual nature to those parties that asked for it,
and on a confidential basis, for whichever discussion is going
on at that time.[62]
80. Should more than one party in negotiations
require exactly the same information from the civil service, then
exactly the same response should be issued to all of the parties
who asked for it. Any information requested by one party should
only be sent to other parties involved in the negotiations if
all parties agree to this practice at the outset of the negotiation
period.
51 The Cabinet Manual, Cabinet Office, October 2011,
para 2.14 Back
52
Q129 [Sir Jeremy Heywood] Back
53
Q103 [Sir Jeremy Heywood] Back
54
Institute for Government (GFE 03), para 17 Back
55
Prof Robert Hazell (GFE04), para 4 Back
56
Prof Robert Hazell (GFE04), para 5 Back
57
Q131 [Sir Jeremy Heywood] Back
58
Q28 [Prof Robert Hazell] Back
59
Q136 [Sir Jeremy Heywood] Back
60
Prof Robert Hazell (GFE04), para 5 Back
61
Q29 [Dr Catherine Haddon] Back
62
Q133 [Sir Jeremy Heywood] Back
| 
