5 Special Advisers
34. Throughout this Parliament we have found that
Special Advisers perform an essential but often controversial
role. In our October 2012 report on Special Advisers, we said
that Ministers must recognise their responsibility, not just accountability,
for the conduct of their Special Advisers so that Special Advisers,
Ministers and civil servants work effectively together.[46]
We said that Ministers must actively ensure that they are fully
aware of what their advisers are doing in their name. In particular,
we raised our concerns that responsibility for Special Advisers
has "proved to be more theoretical than actual"-and
that we could not recall any Minister ever resigning over the
conduct of a Special Adviser, despite some astonishing cases.
35. We also said that the Special Adviser role protects
the impartiality of the Civil Service, by performing tasks it
would be inappropriate for permanent, impartial officials to perform,
helping to ensure that the Government's policy objectives are
delivered. However, Ministers must be able to justify that the
tasks Special Advisers undertake are in the public interest. We
recommended that Ministers should notify the relevant departmental
Select Committee when they appoint a new adviser, setting out
that individual's responsibilities and their qualifications for
the role. While Select Committees should not hold pre-appointment
hearings, they should reserve the right to call Special Advisers
to give evidence on their role and qualifications for the job
in exceptional circumstances.
36. The Government agreed that trust and mutual respect
between Ministers, officials and Special Advisers are vital for
the effective functioning of Government and where mistrust is
attributable to the actions of Special Advisers, it is for Ministers
to address. [47]
37. Since our 2012 Report and the Government's response
to it in 2013, we have kept the issue of Special Advisers under
review, and there have been further controversies involving Special
Advisers. We considered one of these cases in our Report Lessons
for Civil Service impartiality from the Scottish independence
referendum.[48] Early
in January 2015 it became clear that Special Advisers reporting
to Conservative Ministers had been told to take part in telephone
canvassing on behalf of their party in the November 2014 Rochester
and Strood by-election campaign. However, as we found, canvassing
is not compatible with the Code of Conduct and the Model Contract
of employment for Special Advisers currently in force. Our advice
from Speaker's Counsel was that telephone canvassing by a Special
Adviser represented "the crossing of the Rubicon". In
an oral evidence session we pressed Sir Jeremy to consult the
Government's Law Officers, and he undertook to "take legal
advice".[49] We
recommended that Special Advisers should never again be confronted
with directions or informal pressure that puts them in breach
of the Code and of their contracts of employment. Our successor
Committee will have to keep this under review.
46 Public Administration Select Committee, Sixth Report
of Session 2012-13, Special advisers in the thick of it, HC 134,
October 2012 Back
47
Public Administration Select Committee, Second Special Report
of Session 2013-14, Special advisers in the thick of it: Government Response to the Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2012-13,
HC 515 , July 2013 Back
48
Public Administration Select Committee, Fifth Report of Session
2014-15, Lessons for Civil Service impartiality from the Scottish independence referendum,
HC 111, March 2015 Back
49
Oral evidence taken on 27 January 2015, (2014-15), HC 669, Q 446 Back
|
