| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of the need to strictly apply the four minute rule.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, perhaps I may make my final point. I can deal with it quickly.
Moving on to my second question about the right legislative vehicle for such issues, I recognise that some will say that changes and clarifications can be achieved without a Civil Service Act; codes can be re-written and Orders in Council changed. In my view, that would not be an ideal situation.
By enshrining in statute the core values of appointment on merit after fair and open competition, and by incorporating in statute the responsibilities and powers of the Civil Service commissioners, including the obligation to report on their work, we would place the constitutional position of the Civil Service more directly under the oversight of Parliament. By disentangling the constitutional position of the Civil Service—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I remind the House that noble Lords who stray past the four minutes take time away from other Peers who wish to contribute to the debate.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it is appropriate for this debate that, within the category of "special advisers", it is political advisers whose role requires clarification in a Civil Service Bill. So I agree with the Motion.
Noble Lords will recall that I have drawn attention to the need for clear statements of the functions of special advisers ever since the debate that I initiated in this House in 1997. I advocated the introduction of a new Civil Service Bill. I am glad that the Government are now likely to accept such a recommendation. The functions and roles of advisers should be defined in that Bill, and they should be given statutory authorisation. Do the Government accept such an idea and, if so, when can a Bill be expected?
An important reason for introducing such a measure is that special advisers are not accountable to Parliament. Presumably, they cannot be summoned to give evidence to Select Committees. Ministers have recently responded to questions on this subject by comparing numbers. They have pointed to the several thousand civil servants working in Whitehall and to the figure of about 80 special advisers. I suggest that such a comparison misses the point. The special advisers work directly for Ministers—mostly on political subjects—and are expected to depart when a general election leads to a change in the party in office. The large majority of the civil servants are engaged in work which does not involve dealing with Ministers directly on political subjects.
Of course, the two categories have to work together, and they must understand and acknowledge each other's functions. The duties of civil servants have been fairly clear for many years and are set out in documents. The role of special advisers is not yet similarly specified.
I make it clear that I have never objected to the existence and activities of special advisers. I tabled a Question recently, not because I object to them, but because I like to be kept informed of what is happening. The reply confirmed that two special advisers working at No. 10 have the power to instruct civil servants. They are the chief of communications and the chief of staff at No. 10. Is the number to remain at two, or are there likely to be more appointments of special advisers with powers to instruct civil servants?
3.53 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on his success in the ballot and on choosing this subject for debate. I strongly agree with him on the need to clarify the respective responsibilities of Ministers, political advisers and civil servants.
Ministers are supported by a permanent, non-political, professional career Civil Service, with, in the words of G. M. Trevelyan, its accumulated stores of knowledge, experience and sound tradition. The result of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the 19th century was the removal of the Civil Service from the field of political jobbery by the adoption of open competitive examination as the method of entrance.
Of course, the public service is not, and should not be, immune to reform. Indeed, it sometimes seems to me that there has been a more or less continuous process of public service reform, at least since 1979 if not since the Fulton committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, was a distinguished member. However, there are continuing values that we should be seeking to retain throughout the process of reform. If, as I believe, the system of government in this country has been relatively free of political and other forms of corruption, that has been at least partly because the permanent Civil Service, as it has been developed, is an important force for integrity in that system.
Special advisers are not a new breed. They have been around in one form or another for a good many years, under governments of both the main political parties. In my experience, a special adviser can be a very useful addition to the support of a busy Minister—to advise the Minister on the specifically political dimension of his policies and actions, and to assist in interpreting the Minister's political views and needs to civil servants—so long as he does not act as though he is usurping the authority of the Minister.
But one can have too much, even of a good thing. There are now over 80 special advisers, 26 of them in 10 Downing Street. That is more than double the number before 1997. I believe that the machinery of government would work just as well, and I dare say better, with a good many fewer special advisers—and not only in No. 10. I am not persuaded that all departmental Ministers need two special advisers in addition to a raft of junior Ministers. I would make the quota one, with two being allowed only in exceptional cases.
So I agree with noble Lords who have proposed that there should be a limit, either on the total number of special advisers paid from public funds, or on the total amount of public funds expended on the employment of special advisers.
We also need to define the role of special advisers and to distinguish it from that of civil servants. Special advisers have a different function—one might say a different agenda—from civil servants. Civil servants are accountable to Ministers for honest and dispassionate advice on policies, for making sure that
Ministers are as fully and accurately informed as possible, for the execution of policies once decided upon, and for the administration and management of government.Special advisers are also accountable to Ministers—in so far as they are accountable at all—but they are advisory, and their agenda in the task of advising Ministers is, first and foremost, party political. The two strands of accountability come together at ministerial level. In my view, it is unwise to try to bring them together below that; the functions and the agenda are so different.
I do not believe that it is wise to put special advisers in charge of civil servants. I know that there are at present only two special advisers—both in 10 Downing Street—who are in that position. Nevertheless, when I learn not only that the Central Office of Information (or whatever it is now called) has been brought under the umbrella of the Cabinet Office, but also—as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, reminded us—that for some of her functions the head of the COI reports and is responsible directly to the Director of Strategy and Communications in 10 Downing Street, Mr Alastair Campbell, then I fear that the Government are laying themselves still further open to the perception that party political considerations are being allowed to exert too great an influence on the activities of the Government's public relations service and the integrity of the Civil Service is at greater risk of being seriously compromised.
I have not been in favour of a Civil Service Act. My preference would be to continue to rely in such matters on codes of guidance and practice which can be more flexible and susceptible to adjustment in changing circumstances than can statutory legislation.
My primary care and concern are for the integrity of the Civil Service. We must not lose sight of the value of that and of the need to preserve it. I have been out of the public service for 14 years. If the judgment of those who are closer to these matters than I am is that the preservation of the integrity of the Civil Service now requires a Civil Service Act, then so be it.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, welcoming the Motion as I do, I must declare that I was a special adviser for over five years, heading the Downing Street Policy Unit, where I worked with six of the speakers in today's debate. It is quite a club reunion for us. Four were civil servants and two were special advisers. As such, I strongly believe in the valuable role of special advisers. They are important and their existence is justified in the crucial political dimension of government—and governments are political. Not all special advisers are, or have been, perfect, but that is true of some civil servants and even of some politicians. I am not convinced that legislation would remedy that.
My main purpose in speaking today is to take what is, I think, a minority view, although in a special area, and to question the need for legislation to clarify the specific issue of relations between civil servants and
special advisers. We may well, however, need an Act for other reasons, and I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Holme, Lord Butler and Lord Radice and others, will make an excellent case for that. Although I certainly agree that relations between the political and the official side require clarity—problems arise if it is not clear who does what—we do not necessarily need heavy, detailed legislation for that particular purpose. I am not sure that the existence of an Act would have solved those problems in the Department of Transport.I should perhaps mention one aspect of my experience on entering No. 10 Downing Street, in March 1974. The then Cabinet Secretary, Sir John Hunt, and I had a series of intensive negotiations, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, on precisely this subject. The result was what we called the concordat, a list of so-called general rules on access to committees, papers and people which was issued to Whitehall. This concordat gave the policy unit necessary access, and in return we assured permanent officials that we would not cross wires, usurp the role of Ministers or seek to replace the normal channels of communication between officials and Ministers. It established in detail where special advisers go and what they see and set no limit on their access to their Ministers. It allowed the flexibility of extra access following consultation so that everyone would know what was going on.
I believe that the arrangement worked, although my four Civil Service colleagues may dissent. I also suggest that it is a more practical and flexible path on this specific issue than legislation, which is often rigid and—as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said from his experience—set in concrete and too heavy handed. Each department could take this approach with its own general rules together with the existing code of conduct, refined to specific needs and subject to revision with each new administration and Minister.
I also think that special advisers might benefit from a brief period of training and induction. They do perform a distinct and valuable role, and I do not believe that a mere six or seven dozen of them are a mighty threat to the great Civil Service machine. However, they will perform their distinctive role better for their Ministers if they work closely with the official machine and if both sides are clear and educated on their own territorial boundaries and responsibilities.
I was encouraged by the characteristically sensible comments by Sir Andrew Turnbull in The Times today and think that this particular issue can mainly be settled departmentally. Sir Andrew says that it can be done following the No. 10 Downing Street Policy Unit model. I hope that that is the task which will be followed, even within the context of an Act addressing the wider issues raised in this excellent debate.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holme on initiating this vital
debate. As he observed, it is particularly timely coinciding as it does with Sir Andrew Turnbull's interview in today's The Times.As many noble Lords have remarked, in the past 20 years, the Civil Service has had to operate in a very turbulent milieu. Successive governments have introduced a plethora of innovations in the name of modernising the apparatus of the state. It is of course the duty of government to bring in new methods in order to discharge their duties in whatever efficacious way they think fit. But these have occurred without the slightest attention being paid to the need for proper accountability. It is not any one particular reform that may be objected to in this context; rather, it is their aggregative effect that is at question. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, in sum total they have given rise to the political demi-monde, a labyrinthine series of quagmirish networks populated by "hived off" state agencies, quangos, task forces, think tanks, policy czars, unaccredited peripatetic plenipotentiaries, management consultants and lobbyists. They are the policy context in which the Civil Service has to work.
It is this demi-monde that the Civil Service has had to learn to live with somehow or other. If we had a written constitution, these recent innovations in the workings of the state could not have occurred without adequate provisions being made for robust public accountability. Some of the senior Whitehall mandarinate, such as Sir Andrew Turnbull seemingly, believe that there should be an extension of the demi-monde and that he and his official colleagues are quite capable of adapting to it in some sort of undefined manner. That, of course, is the problem. Others such as Sir Richard Wilson, current head of the Civil Service, appear to argue that the service and many of its qualities for independence, objectivity, merit appointment and non-partisanship, will be unable to withstand much more encroachment by the demi-monde. That is why Sir Richard proposes a Civil Service Act which would put the permanent element of the Executive on a statutory basis. Such an Act is commonplace in most other liberal democracies and would go a long way in delineating the precise role of the service vis-à-vis the denizens of the demi-monde.
Formal codification of this sort would not only restore a large measure of accountability to the Executive branch of government but would have the additional benefits of making it more amenable to effective scrutiny by the legislative branch and review by the judicial branch. While the institutions and processes of government may become outdated, the basic principles of democracy, of which accountability is among the most important, do not. The constitutional canons of the 19th century are still valid, and they need equally to be applied and adapted to meet our contemporary arrangements. Governments are criticised for their acts of commission when these fall short or go awry, but they are really upbraided for their acts of omission that may well be equally harmful to the good ordering of affairs.
The introduction of a Civil Service Act, now long overdue, would restore public faith in the Government's commitment to constitutional reform. This received a welcome fillip last week when it was announced that the Prime Minister was willing to appear twice a year before the Liaison Committee consisting of the Select Committee Chairmen of another place. That is a clear example of improving public accountability. Commitment to speedy introduction of a Civil Service Act would be another.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Burns: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for introducing this debate. I am encouraged that there is much agreement today about the role of Ministers, political advisers and civil servants and about the need for clarity. It goes without saying that I agree about the enormous value that we derive from a non-political permanent Civil Service that includes appointments to the most senior level. However, I also agree that there is much benefit to be gained from continuing to open up appointments at senior levels to give outsiders the opportunity to compete on merit. Some progress has been made in recent years, but I think that there is probably scope to go further.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I am also persuaded that there is an important role for temporary "expert" advisers who have proven policy skills which appeal to Ministers to assist in the policy process. However, it is important that Ministers, in taking advantage of those skills, appreciate the policy skills that the permanent Civil Service brings. I do not particularly like the fashionable distinction that maintains that Ministers and advisers should set policy whereas delivery is down to the Civil Service. In my experience, it is important that those charged with delivery are fully involved in policy design, and furthermore that policymakers understand that the quality of their design will have a substantial influence on the chances of successful delivery.
I do not think that anyone who has worked at a senior level within Whitehall now doubts that there is also an important role for "political" special advisers. Throughout my time in the Civil Service, there was very little problem with "the borderline" with permanent civil servants. Although there have been some high-profile exceptions, I do not think that they should cloud what has generally been a very positive relationship. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that it is vital that departmental press offices should be staffed by civil servants who provide information in a factual and objective way. That gives confidence to the world outside that they are getting a straight story.
However, I am in the minority today in that I am not yet persuaded that there is an urgent need for a Civil Service Act. I am not sure that such an Act would make a huge difference in practice. It seems that Ministers, civil servants and political advisers generally do know their responsibilities, and the
arrangement works well most of the time. When it does not, it tends to be because of personalities and circumstances rather than the absence of statute.My perception is that within Whitehall there is a marketplace for advice. In practice Ministers will listen to advice from a variety of sources and make their judgment on their view of the merits of that advice. Civil servants do not have a monopoly of policy skills and therefore cannot expect to have a monopoly in the supply of advice. Like all marketplaces there is some role for rules to ensure fair trading, but my tentative view remains that this is best achieved through codes of conduct and clarification. At the same time we need to be sufficiently flexible to cope with future evolution rather than trying to fix things at any point in time.
In coming to that view I was very much influenced by the observation that in the commercial world management practices evolve over time in many ways. We see this in relation to outsourcing and in relation to the proportion of senior management who come from within or outside organisations. We see it in different methods of appointment and the extent to which people use consultants and outside advisers in a whole variety of ways. I am wary about seeking to legislate for best practice today knowing how far life and management practices could evolve in the future. I worry that whatever we set out to define today would not be terribly robust very far into the future.
My own view is that before deciding on whether or not we need legislation, we need much more debate and a greater degree of consensus about some of the substantive issues that have been discussed today. Only when that consensus has been achieved and some of the issues that clearly concern noble Lords have been resolved should we consider whether legislation is necessary or whether just as much could be achieved by a rather greater degree of clarification that could be brought about in some other way.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. I wish to reinforce the call for a Civil Service Act and, in the few minutes available to me, to suggest that such an Act is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improving the quality of government in this country.
The case for a Civil Service Act is a persuasive one because of changes in the nature of government. Government in this country has never been some homogeneous whole. It has comprised several parts, and the relationship between them has been one of interdependence. It has been an interdependence of defined parts, each proceeding on the basis of respect for the others. That mutual respect has declined in recent years. We have seen conflict and, more especially, a blurring of the boundaries that have been a feature of British government.
The change that has occurred is, I believe, largely though not wholly, for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, the consequence of a trend towards a centralisation of power—the Prime Minister seeking greater autonomy in policy making—and in
recent years exaggerated and hence unsustainable expectations of what civil servants should and can do. The Cabinet Secretary has been left with the unenviable task of defending what were previously well-understood norms as to the respective roles of Ministers and civil servants.Exaggerated expectations may to some degree be attributed to the lack of previous experience on the part of Ministers. There has always been a problem in that each Minister, when appointed to head a department, has basically had to re-invent the wheel. Ministers come in with no training and usually with very little guidance as to what is expected of them. The way in which one Minister runs a department may bear little relationship to how other Ministers run theirs. This is a problem but one ameliorated to some extent if Ministers have spent some years in junior office. In 1997, a new government was elected and most new Ministers had no prior experience of government. There had been some seminars laid on for them in opposition, but in practice this did not appear to equip them for the management of departments.
This analysis leads me to the conclusion that a Civil Service Act is necessary but not sufficient. It is necessary in order to establish the relationship between the different parts of government. However, by itself it is not sufficient. As Sir Richard Wilson mentioned in his recent speech, such an Act would be no guarantee of good behaviour. I believe that it should be complemented by a structured programme of training for senior Ministers. Government in this country has been the preserve of amateurs: Ministers and senior officials have never been subject to professional training. Senior civil servants are managers but their focus has been primarily that of policy advice. Some training is provided through the Centre for Management and Policy Studies, not only for officials but also now, I gather, for junior Ministers. What is needed is a more rigorous training for senior Ministers so that there can be a dissemination of best practice and also in order that Ministers can gain some understanding of the role and relationship of Ministers to civil servants. Stipulating functions and responsibilities by statute is valuable—arguably now it is necessary—but it only takes us so far. To understand the fundamentals of relationships, of how government has developed and how Ministers can get the most out of their departments—in a way that brings out the best in their officials—requires normative guidance and an understanding of best practice.
I have little doubt that the Minister will reiterate that the Government are committed to the introduction of a Civil Service Bill. I shall be interested to know whether the Government also accept that such a measure should be complemented by a training programme for all incoming Ministers. Stipulating responsibilities and relationships is one thing; appreciating them is another. The two must go together.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I also welcome the debate. I do not want to be a "party pooper" by opposing the convivial atmosphere in favour of a Civil Service Bill. I am in favour of a Civil Service Bill. I believe that a well conceived Civil Service Bill could do a bit of good and not much harm. However, I lay stress on the words "well conceived".
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, is in a hurry as regards a Bill. However, what is in the Bill matters much more than that we have a Bill. A rush to legislation would not necessarily be right in this case. I say that particularly because if we rush to legislation now we should be rather dominated by what seems to me a febrile and short-run controversy about political advisers. There are many public servants present who are more distinguished than I should ever dream of being. However, if one looks at the governance of our country and the state of our Civil Service and the issues facing it—openness, the skills required, the way it is managed and so on and so forth—special advisers come rather low down the list. I hope that we shall not become fixated on that. Having said that, as a former special adviser I shall demonstrate that I am fixated on it by stating my view of how to deal with the problem, at least in part.
Much of the problem with special advisers arises because we treat them like some kind of ersatz civil servants or centaur civil servants, half man, half beast. We cannot quite get the special adviser concept to fit into the Civil Service box. That is partly because civil servants and special advisers are paid out of the same pot of money voted in the same way by Parliament and subject to the same scrutiny.
My proposal, which I put to the Public Administration Committee in the Commons, is that special advisers should be treated differently. They should be treated in the same way as aides to the opposition are treated and provided for through the Short money, which is specifically voted by Parliament for that purpose. That means that every year the Government would have to justify to Parliament the amount of money they wanted to spend on special advisers and the number of special advisers that that would support. I am pleased to say that the Public Administration Committee adopted my proposal. I was not the least bit surprised that the Government rejected it because of course they would like to be able to appoint as many special advisers as they like at whatever salaries they think they can get away with and with the minimum of parliamentary scrutiny.
I believe that Parliament should take a different view. There is now a chance to get this matter going again. The Wicks inquiry, which I very much welcome, heard evidence from the proposers of the measure and is taking an interest in it. I hope that with the support of this House the Government can be made to think again and the position of special advisers can be regulated at least in the regard that I mentioned.
Finally, let us suppose that a Bill came before both Houses. This week a Joint Committee was established to examine the Communications Bill. That is a
complicated piece of legislation involving big but not partisan issues. If we have a Bill on the subject we are discussing, there is a great deal to be said for having a Joint Committee of Parliament to examine it—it should be bipartisan as the legislation will be of use only if it is bipartisan—taking in the great wisdom we have seen displayed in this House and which I know exists in the Public Administration Committee and elsewhere. We should incorporate within the Bill not just the interests of government as an institution and those of civil servants as an institution but also the fundamental interest in all this of Parliament as a representative of our democracy. I hope that the Government and the Houses of Parliament will pick up that proposal and run with it.4.20 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for introducing this important topic. I should declare my interests: my father was a permanent civil servant, my son was a political adviser, my daughter works for the National Health Service and I was a contract civil servant for five years—I was chief executive of a government agency: the Met Office. Because of its international activities, I was able to observe how civil services operate in other countries.
As other noble Lords have noted, there is no questioning the fact that the British Civil Service continues to have very high calibre staff. They are trusted by Ministers and are expected, as they have done for 200 years or more, to take independent decisions. They do that knowing very well that if they make mistakes, they cannot be quite sure that they will not take the rap. They certainly cannot be sure that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility always prevails.
That theoretical aspect to the operation of the Civil Service is one that a new Act needs to address, especially in light of more open government. It is that unclear element in the relationship between civil servants and Ministers that sometimes gives rise to anonymous briefings and extraordinary misunderstandings about the truth. One remembers Hilaire Belloc's ditty:
- "Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,
I agree with other noble Lords about the need for political advisers. Implicitly, they refer only to political advice to Ministers, but every senior civil servant needs extremely acute eyes, ears and political advice to perform effectively in relation to Whitehall, Westminster and the wider world.
No one is proposing to offer political advisers to the chief executive of the Met Office or the Passport Agency, so what is to be done? Short of recruiting the extraordinarily sophisticated cadres from the French grandes écoles, we need drastically to improve the political training of all civil servants. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Most civil servants work far from Whitehall but they need to understand how the Civil Service, government and politics work. They also need to understand the demi-monde, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, called it, and
how that relates to the UK system as a whole. I recall inviting a senior police officer to a local Labour Party meeting. He had never previously been to a political meeting in his life.Many civil servants and politicians sometimes have a better education of the whole system when they visit the United States as Fulbright scholars than they have ever experienced through the UK. I very much hope that the training of UK civil servants is improving in relation to that more political role.
Finally, I very much hope that the Minister will allow civil servants to give evidence during the discussions on the new Act and the new arrangements. In the past, some civil servants have been severely criticised or prevented from doing so. We need to have a wide range of input, not simply from Cabinet Secretaries.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, there has been legislation on the public service before, but one has to go back to the 18th century to find it. That legislation arose because Ministers in charge of departments had made it a practice to recruit Members of Parliament and put them on the departmental payrolls so as to control their vote. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the first legislation regarding the Civil Service was to prevent the corruption of Parliament.
We should remind ourselves of what the Northcote-Trevelyan report was up to. It was trying to improve the quality of public service, as we are doing today, to eliminate, in its words, "the unambitious, indolent and incapable" and to recruit the best graduates from the universities, which were themselves then subject to fundamental reforms. It concluded that,
- "it can only be done through the medium of an Act of Parliament".
The main point that leads me to feel that we should move towards legislation on the public service is the fact that something is happening to the unwritten constitution. It is changing in front of our eyes. It has been widely noted that the Cabinet now meets less regularly and for shorter periods. I suspect that our inherited constitutional system is undergoing a gradual but definite change. It is certainly an advantage of unwritten constitutions such as ours that
they are able to respond to new situations more quickly and with greater ability. That flexibility may be its greatest strength.However, the converse must also be noted— that underlying principles and concepts tend to be overlooked in our scheme of things. It is a characteristic of British thinking that we tend to concentrate on practical matters that need to be dealt with and that we have less regard for the underlying principles that should motivate us. We need to review the workings of our present arrangements, possibly with a view to an Act that sets out some principles—not detailed points of administration—so that we know what we are aiming for. That is why it would be desirable to produce a Bill containing those principles.
We still need to recruit the ablest young men and women to work for our society as a whole. The process must be open and fair. Any tendency to revert to political patronage in the service of the state should be carefully controlled. One possibility is to execute the decision of the Cabinet in 1854 and to pass a short Bill on the subject that sets out those principles. As they say, it is never too late to mend.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I add my voice to those who are totally unpersuaded about the need for legislation on this matter. First, that is because we have had much too much constitutional legislation, and a period of digestion would be in order. Secondly, it is because if there were such legislation, it would either be far too restrictive and inflexible—it would not enable the government to adapt to what is happening in the real world, which we cannot predict—or it would be so full of loopholes as to be pretty useless.
I am reminded that between 1967 and 1970, my noble friend Lord Howell and I spent some time working on potential changes in the machinery of government. Because the election of 1970 was a busy moment for important politicians, I was delegated to discuss some of our ideas with the two great giants in Whitehall—Sir Burke Trend, then Secretary to the Cabinet, and Sir William Armstrong, then head of the Civil Service. At that time, one of our main proposals was to set up a body that became the Central Policy Review Staff, or CPRS. At that time, we thought that it should be under the Prime Minister. I was quickly persuaded by those two mandarins that that was not a good idea and that it should work for the Cabinet as a whole. That, of course, is what happened. It was a useful exercise, particularly, I suppose, because it was set up under Lord Rothschild, to whom the famous adage of Lord Curzon really did apply:
- "No man should be Viceroy of India to whom that job is an honour".
Why does all of this matter? One reason is because we want good government. That means honest, responsive and cost-effective government. Perhaps even more, it is because we want government that is perceived as being honest, responsive and cost-effective. To the people of Britain—this is the case in many countries—perception of government is at the same time both fuzzy and sharp. It is fuzzy because they do not make a clear distinction between the legislature and the executive—or even between the executive and the judiciary, let alone between the Commons and the Lords or between permanent, temporary, political or special adviser civil servants. That is unlike the United States whose constitution deliberately separates the legislature and the executive. British government is even more fuzzy in relation to Ministers, civil servants and the hybrid special adviser. Equally, perception can be quite sharp. For the individual citizen, the impact of government is of huge importance, when it is important at all. The great thing about France is that we can learn from it in particular matters because so often things happen in France that—thank God—never actually quite happen in Britain. The French government system is most elitist and authoritarian. The typical Frenchman does not believe that a parliament is capable of defending his interests. Thus when the mob takes to the streets, the people support the mob—which is totally different from the United Kingdom where the people support the government of the day.
In our country, there is confidence in Parliament and still in the Civil Service. It may be eroding but confidence is largely a product of commonsense behaviour. It is the responsibility of those in government—particularly the head of the government of the day—to ensure that standards of behaviour are observed. I have always been a great believer in the need for Ministers to resign when necessary—not because they are necessarily to blame but it gives more power to their successors. When things go wrong, action should be taken. But I do not believe that legislation is needed. The machinery of government is far too complicated to legislate on the lines to which the Motion refers. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view, if he has one.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for taking the initiative in arranging this debate. On an earlier occasion, I declared both my fraternal interests as a special adviser and civil servant. I am probably the most junior ex-civil servant to take part in the debate. I never was a Cabinet Secretary, Permanent Secretary, Chief Executive or anything similar. Maybe that is to the good.
Clearly we will get a Civil Service Act because the Government have committed themselves to having one. It will come eventually. But in their shoes, I would not hurry—especially not to produce a Civil Service Act on the lines suggested in the Motion. Focusing so tightly on clarifying and defining roles smacks to me of the boilermakers union at the height of its powers.
Defining roles is a subsidiary issue. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that it is likely to be counter-productive, by setting in concrete something that needs to be flexible. We may end up stifling change instead of encouraging it.Equally, further important changes are needed in the Civil Service but one does not need legislation—that can be done, as it has been done satisfactorily in the past, by executive order.
A number of noble Lords are het up about special advisers. My own experience of them has been almost entirely positive. I found them a lively source of ideas that offered a fresh perspective from outside. They helped to insulate civil servants from political pressures by keeping political tasks at bay. Far from seeing special advisers as a threat to the independence of the Civil Service or to our constitutional order, the process of government would probably benefit from having rather more of them.
I would like a higher proportion of special advisers selected for their expertise, rather than just for their political affiliation, and to see them spread more widely through the government machine or process—instead of them all congregating around ministerial private offices, where they can become a centre for skulduggery.
We want to avoid at all costs the French or German model, where a lot of politically affiliated civil servants hang around waiting for their lot to get back into power. I hope that we shall not approach the issue of special advisers from the point of view of limiting and restricting their role but of maximising their usefulness to government.
As to further Civil Service reform, I agree with the views reported in The Times this morning of Sir Andrew Turnbull—the new Cabinet Secretary and my former colleague. We need far more people whose talents and expertise lie in delivering services to the public and project management. Civil servants ought to be given much more responsibility earlier. In my experience, one of the greatest differences is that people outside the Civil Service are given responsibility much sooner and stand or fall by their performance. We need that culture in the Civil Service too, so that poor performers will be dispensed with. Sir Andrew is quoted as saying that the Civil Service cannot be a job for life.
I should like to see time-limited contracts for all appointments at senior civil servant level, with those appointments advertised outside. I have little doubt that my own Civil Service career would have foundered earlier had I needed to meet those requirements. Even so, it is desirable to make changes of that sort. My worry is that by focusing on a Civil Service Act, particularly of the scope proposed, we may be neglecting what is really important and pursing instead a rather legalistic and pedantic approach—which will do nothing much to improve the effectiveness of government.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who is, not for the first time, a valuable and timely voice for common sense. Finding refuge in the opaque may be amusing and can certainly be clever but it is seldom particularly honourable. That, for me, is the great attraction of a Civil Service Act—not a neurotically rushed Bill but one that offers the possibility of injecting clarity and order into what has become a disorderly and thoroughly negative national obsession.
I do not believe for one moment that we can get the genie back into the bottle, so we have to deal with the situation as we find it. I entirely understand the reservations that have been expressed during the past one and a half hours because, to a degree, I work within the system. But please believe me—even the best arguments against such an Act would strike discord among a public conditioned to accept transparency as the desirable norm.
My limited contribution to this debate is as someone who, for the past five years, has served—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Holme—as one of the "thinly disguised" consultants. Or was it thinly disguised peers? Most of my family would probably agree with the latter. Five years ago today, I entered what was, to me, an alien world of hierarchies, some of them hard to fathom. I met civil servants involved in policy creation, a group involved in policy advice and, well down the totem pole, a larger group involved with policy implementation. It was there, among the untouchables, that I found my natural niche.
What followed has been without doubt the most satisfying and thoroughly enjoyable period of my working life. I have met and worked with remarkable and entirely committed people. For the most part, the people whom I have met in public service could give a real lesson in commitment and decency to the vast majority of the people that I met over 30 years in the private sector.
I work across departments, urging coherence and timeliness to a group of evermore receptive colleagues. I do not recognise for one moment the scenarios painted in the wake of the Jo Moore shambles. I have dealt with remarkable people, who displayed remarkable civility and a remarkable sense of what is best for this country. I am very proud to have worked with them.
I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, when he urges us to stop demonising political advisers. It may sell newspapers but does not serve the objectives of good or effective government.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I do not know whether any Civil Service Act would apply also to the Diplomatic Service, which relies on an entirely separate Order in Council. My own experience as head of the Diplomatic Service for five years was that the relationship between the small handful of special advisers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the career public servants who staff that office and
overseas posts was not only unproblematic but that they worked extremely closely together as members of a team. I understand that happy situation still applies, some 11 years later.I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for intervening, but in the brief time available I want to deploy some of the arguments for ensuring that the Diplomatic Service continues to operate as a highly effective and professional branch of the public service—and that it receives the necessary resources to cope with the wide and increasing variety of diplomatic, political and commercial challenges that faces it around the world.
I remind the House of the regular support and advice that our 226 overseas posts provide to government and business, by lobbying—often through personal contacts that would not be easily accessible from occasional visits or by long-distance communications; by professional advice that draws on commercial and political expertise, and a good knowledge of the people involved locally at top decision-making levels; and by underpinning the Government's foreign policy work overseas, which has strengthened Britain's reputation abroad and helps to create a climate that promotes the United Kingdom's political, strategic and commercial interests.
I commend this Government for maintaining, as their predecessors have done, a global foreign policy. But an ambitious foreign policy agenda requires adequate resources. I hope, therefore, that the forthcoming spending review will be generous in allotting extra funds for the Diplomatic Service to enable my successors in King Charles Street to retain an effective, and truly global, service.
The three Secretaries of State whom I served as Permanent Under-Secretary—two of whom are Members of this House—will recall the constant necessity to have contingency plans ready for post closures, in case of the need for financial retrenchment. If the Foreign Office had been forced in the last spending review to close any posts, it is easy to imagine that the axe might well have fallen on some in Central Asia, with serious subsequent consequences for our influence and effective diplomacy after the events of 11th September.
I still believe, as strongly as I ever have, that we possess in the Diplomatic Service a uniquely effective tool to promote our interests world-wide. It is also remarkably cost effective. The Foreign Office budget for this year is no more than 0.09 per cent of GDP. I should point out that 87 of our overseas posts have no more than four UK-based staff, and 21 have only one. Even if one includes expenditure on the British Council and on the BBC World Service, the total budget of £1.2 billion is roughly equivalent to the budget of Birmingham City Council.
Even a small amount of money spent now on conflict pre-emption will save much larger sums required later on conflict prevention. Adequate funding for the service is important for British industry and, indeed, for Britain's wider interests, including the
consular protection and advice that the service can provide for the 56 million, or so, of our compatriots who now travel overseas each year.I make no apology for using this debate as an opportunity to remind your Lordships of the vital contribution that the professionalism of this small branch of the public service makes towards global stability. I do not believe that an Act is required for the Diplomatic Service, but I urge the Government to ensure that it continues to receive the resources that it needs.
4.42 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, in his argument about the Diplomatic Service, although my two years as a special adviser in the Foreign Office left me with nothing but admiration for that service and the task that it performs. Similarly, I shall not spend an over-long time congratulating my noble friend Lord Holme on initiating this debate. Indeed, the quality of the debate is congratulation enough. However, when the Minister responds, I hope that he will promise a much longer debate on the subject, and further consultation with the expertise that exists in this House. Although I understand the conventions of the House—as I am sure is the case with the noble Baroness—stamping on, and cutting short, the First Civil Service Commissioner when she was trying to give noble Lords some information earlier reminded me a little of the Labour Party conference giving Dennis Healey four minutes to explain his policy towards the IMF.
When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, it is perhaps worth remembering that the big question was whether the Civil Service was capable of adapting to new masters after 18 years of one-party rule. Most observers have concluded that the service passed that test superbly—something for which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, deserves great credit. In addition to the fears of politicisation, there were concerns that what has been called "the public service ethos" had been weakened by the various initiatives of out-sourcing, privatisation, and market testing that had been undertaken during the Thatcher era.
The latter was one of the aspects that we considered in the Select Committee of this House, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, of which I was a member and which reported in 1998. It is worth repeating our conclusion:
- "The evidence we received testified to the high standards of efficiency, integrity, impartiality and intellectual rigour which continue to characterise the Civil Service".
In 1997, this Government inherited a Civil Service, which, although reduced in number, retained both the ethos of public service and a capacity to serve the government of the day. Yet, after five years of Labour Government, there are both criticisms and concerns about the Civil Service and its future direction which
make this debate timely. As the Guardian pointed out in an article headlined "Labour's wear and tear on the Whitehall machine" on 2nd March 2002:
- "It should have been a marriage made in heaven. Instead the honeymoon lasted barely months. Long before the Stephen Byers affair the applause had stopped; now the relationship has become seriously dysfunctional".
It is no use No. 10 Downing Street pretending that there have not been media briefings expressing dissatisfaction at the inability of career civil servants to carry through radical reforms. It is equally pointless to deny that there have not been complaints that political appointees have tried to bully public servants into actions of a political nature.
Of course, there are other factors at work. In his recent, much-publicised, speech on the state of our public service, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, pointed out that today's public servants have to operate in a society less deferential, more service demanding than in earlier generations. It also operates with a far more intrusive media. That is why I cannot agree with the noble Lords, Lord Armstrong, Lord Donoughue, Lord Burns, Lord Marlesford and Lord Powell, who said that a Civil Service Act was not needed.
Just as the City can no longer be governed by an unwritten code that "my word is my bond", or Parliament assume that we are all "honourable" or "noble" and, therefore, in no need of codes of conduct or declarations of interest, so the Civil Service and its values need to be protected and sustained by statutory underpinning and clear codes of conduct for both career civil servants and political appointees.
It is true to say that what had not been anticipated in 1997 was the influx into government, as part of the intake of political advisers, of a new breed of communications experts honed in a much more aggressive "get your retaliation in first" style of media relations. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, observed, there were—and are—cultural tensions between career civil servants trained to disseminate information and political activists trained to promote partisan political propaganda. Those tensions need to be acknowledged and addressed in codes and legislation. For it is in that grey area between government information and party political propaganda that most problems have arisen.
I believe that there is a broad level of public support for the concept that the Northcote-Trevelyan principles, which have served this country well, should be the bed-rock on which our 21st-century Civil Service is built. I am not sure that there is a need for a statutory limit on the number of special advisers and other outside appointments, as long as other reforms are in place and there is full transparency about what can, and cannot, be done, with the process being kept under regular parliamentary scrutiny.
The interview given by Sir Andrew Turnbull in today's edition of The Times is both a significant and
timely contribution to our debate, although I hope that it is not his last on the matter. His comment:
- "We have lived without [a Civil Service Act] for 150 years",
Likewise, when Sir Andrew says in the interview that worries about,
- "cronyism, the wrong people getting in, people with no merit or claim",
- "the clash between the West Wing style of new Labour and the Yes, Prime Minister ethos of the Whitehall establishment".
As I said, I served on the Slynn committee, and I believe that some of its recommendations bear revisiting. It specified a call for a mechanism by which civil servants could, in the public interest, report breaches in the provisions of any Act. It said that a Civil Service Act should include a requirement for an annual report to Parliament. I certainly endorse the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for pre-legislative scrutiny of any such Act. It also said that Parliament's views on any prospective significant changes should be taken by the Government.
Today, the Guardian has an article assessing five years of Labour rule. It quotes an anonymous Labour insider as saying:
- "If there was a mistake we made it was in not showing how much we value those who work in public services".
- "professional management, professional people and professional tools",
4.51 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for the extraordinary timeliness of his debate and also for providing in his introduction an overview of a situation which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, referred to as a matter of public concern and urgency, and which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, called "dangerous". The noble Lord, Lord Holme, has brought together some of the most distinguished
public servants in the land in a clarifying debate which, I believe, could not have occurred anywhere but in your Lordships' House, and that is a great tribute to it.It seems that the Government have achieved a modern miracle: an all-party consensus on a controversial constitutional issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and many other noble Lords on all sides of the House said, statutory protection is now needed for the Civil Service, codifying best practice and laying down ground rules, rights and duties, and so on.
I believe that that consensus has arisen because critics see three problems. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, concerns publicity or, if one prefers, vanity. Let us consider for a moment the incoming Minister. He is an omniscient being. He has seen the new Jerusalem—a vision of staggering novelty, if only people were sufficiently advanced to grasp it. He needs an advocate or a messenger—someone who can spread the news of his glory far and wide. Instead, what does he find? The classical bureaucracy, where the ideal official, according to Max Weber, conducts his office in,
- "a spirit of formalistic impersonality, without hatred or passion, and hence without affection or enthusiasm".
Thus it is that half of all the 81 special advisers are now directly involved in communication work and a government press release is issued every four minutes. But let us contrast that approach to publicity with the Civil Service tradition of confidentiality. If the Civil Service had a logo, it would be a light under a bushel. Its rule of thumb is: why say one word when none will do? Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, the stage is set for drama in the cultural clash over publicity.
But that first problem is minor compared with the second, which strikes at the heart of the vital constitutional convention of ministerial responsibility. Most certainly, there are far greater experts than me in the Chamber today, but I am told that the position is quite clear on this. A civil servant's duty is to his Minister. He carries out ministerial instructions and the Minister is answerable in public—that is, here in Parliament—for decisions made in his name. Furthermore, I gather that all decisions made by civil servants, other than those that could be construed as misconduct, are constitutionally expected to be defended by Ministers on behalf of officials who cannot answer publicly for themselves.
But what if officials were themselves perceived as having power? What if they actually did have power? Then, of course, a procedure would have to be put in place so that they became answerable in another place and in your Lordships' House. That, of course, is precisely the problem created by those famous Orders in Council for the two officials in Number 10. Those orders gave authority and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and my noble friend Lord Campbell said, as
did the Public Administration Committee in another place, authority should be followed by accountability to Parliament and its Select Committees.That brings me to the third problem, before which, I have to say, the first and second problems which I described pale into insignificance. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, described it as the "demi-monde"; that is, the world of units, task forces, tsars, and so on. Many of them are peopled by those who know or are friends of politicians or, even worse, by those who are involved in raising funds for politicians.
In order to address this most sensitive of questions, perhaps your Lordships would forgive a moment of comparative history. As many people say, this Government seem to have moved us closer to a US system. To capture the genius of the US Government, scholars usually turn to the formal clauses of the US's constitution—its separation of powers, its federal system, its Bill of rights and so on.
But, curiously, the US constitution is almost silent about the type of personnel issues which we have been discussing today. Therefore, for example, when John Adams arrived as President, he showed open preference for those of his own political leanings. Jefferson sought to replace federalists with his own partisans. When Andrew Jackson took office in 1829, he found federal offices occupied by political opponents. Therefore, in his first annual message to Congress, he recommended time-limiting official appointments. His concept was simple. He said, "To the victor the spoils". That was the so-called "spoils system", which regarded government office as the peculiar property of a successful political party to be used for its own advantage.
That system caused many problems down the years, and the issue was brought to a head in America early in the first Eisenhower Administration when, by executive order, the President created "Schedule C" and transferred to it all positions of,
- "a confidential or policy-determining character".
The President justified his action, saying that the posts vacated should be filled by people who sympathised with his policies and were called upon to defend them. But, to critics, the move was reminiscent of the patronage and spoils system of old.
Today, the harshest critics say that we have arrived at, or are getting closer to, such a patronage system in Britain. I shall not go as far as that today but only because of my genuine sympathy for the occupants of Number 10 on whom descends a remorseless, 24-hour, round the clock, seven-day-a-week pressure from the media from the first day that they arrive in office. For them, it is war.
I also have great sympathy for them because it is clear from this debate that the difficulties arise not from the behaviour of particular individuals but from the uniquely unwritten nature of our constitution. There is no fundamental legal document to which
officials and advisers can refer which contains a statement of their organisation and their responsibilities.As many noble Lords have said, things have gone too far in the wrong direction. I would say, although I do not know whether the Minister will agree, that the present arrangements are not good for Ministers because they begin to look too clever by half; they are not good for the country either. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, it adds to cynicism about our institutions.
I hope that the Minister will say why he considers that this rare consensus of all the parties has been achieved on the need for change. I am afraid that so much damage has been done to confidence that we now need legislation to solve the problem.
5 p.m.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for initiating this important debate. Like other noble Lords, I have been impressed by the breadth of experience and the weight of authority deployed in this debate. Clearly, too many points have been raised for me to do justice to them all at the Dispatch Box, but I shall certainly respond by letter as appropriate. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Holme, immediately on one of his central concerns regarding this Government's intentions. The Labour Party's manifesto of last year stated:
- "Our Civil Service is world renowned for its independence. Labour is committed to maintaining the political impartiality of the Civil Service".
I assure noble Lords that this Government are totally committed to maintaining a non-political, permanent Civil Service.
Much of the theme running through today's discussion is consistent with the aims and objectives of the modernising and reforming programme that is already in our Civil Service. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, I did not detect an overwhelming consensus in the House. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I heard caution expressed by noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey, Lord Powell and Lord Marlesford and even the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I also heard direct opposition to the idea of a simple Act being expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue, Lord Burns and Lord Armstrong. Of course, there may have been a weight in favour of legislation, but it is clear to me that this important debate should continue.
Like many noble Lords I welcome the contribution made by Sir Andrew Turnbull who said this morning that he wanted to see greater movement in and out of the Civil Service. I believe that that will benefit not only the Civil Service but also the private and wider public sectors and the individuals inside the Civil Service. Like the noble Lord, Lord Powell, I appreciated the emphasis that Sir Andrew appeared to place on the need for greater accountability and incentive.
We have heard wise, if conflicting, counsel on the need for legislation. As has been said many times, the debate is timely. It is an important contribution to a debate that is already under way on the future of the Civil Service. I remind noble Lords of how much work is being done in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, implied in his thoughtful contribution, as he reviewed the history of this debate, that there had been a space that now is increasingly filled by committees that are busy with analysis and recommendations on greater accountability.
The process is being taken forward, for example, by the inquiry currently being conducted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the roles of special advisers and other civil servants. The Government welcome the committee's consultation paper that has just been issued as a positive contribution to the debate about the future of the Civil Service. The House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee also continues to take an active role in contributing to the debate and Members of this House continue to take an active interest in these issues. Their views will help to inform the way forward.
Sir Richard Wilson set out his thoughts in a speech in March, as referred to by a number of noble Lords, and today Sir Andrew Turnbull, his successor, has set out his views. We have heard from the First Civil Service Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. The noble Baroness and the other commissioners are playing a major role in influencing the debate and the Government are grateful to them for that. I should not overlook the role of the Civil Service trade unions. They are also participating in this wide-ranging debate.
An important discussion is already under way. As we move towards the next stages, we want to consider all the views carefully. In the meantime, the existence of a clear published framework for Civil Service activity in the form of a Civil Service code, the Civil Service management code and other key guidance documents, set out clearly for Parliament and the public the framework inside which the Civil Service works.
The Government believe that the existing framework of rules and safeguards works well and continues to be rigorously applied. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, some central, important issues were addressed in the report of the Select Committee of this House. I emphasise that in January 1998 the House of Lords Select Committee on Public Service, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, concluded:
- "The evidence we have received has shown that the current Civil Service has coped in the highest traditions of the Civil Service with the change of Government which occurred in May 1997. We have also received much evidence testifying to the continuing high standards of efficiency, integrity, impartiality and intellectual rigour which characterise the Civil Service. We pay tribute to the Civil Service for maintaining these qualities so well".
The Committee on Standards in Public Life visited issues relating to the Civil Service in both its first and sixth reports and I commend those reports to the
House. That committee is currently considering the issue of legislation for the Civil Service as part of its inquiry, "Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, special advisers and the permanent Civil Service". The committee asks:
- "How could a Civil Service Act help define the boundaries between Ministers, special advisers and permanent civil servants?"
Therefore, we are in the middle of an interesting and constructive debate. The Government will take the committee's conclusions and recommendations into account in determining the way forward.
Noble Lords would not expect me to be able to give a detailed timetable of moves towards deciding a timetable for legislation. I stress that there is no crisis. Sir Andrew Turnbull is right. We have managed pretty well for 150 years and I have no doubt that we shall continue to manage well in the absence of a crisis.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page