Committee on Standards in Public Life

Chair’s statement on Goverment’s response to Ninth Report

Statement by Sir Nigel Wicks in response to the Government’s response to the Ninth Report on ‘Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the Permanent Civil Service’, 11 September 2003

Members of the Committee on Standards in Public Life discussed this morning the Government’s Response to our Ninth Report on ‘Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the Permanent Civil Service’

The Committee were pleased to read that the Government has accepted some of the recommendations in our Report.

In particular we welcome

• That the Government has reaffirmed its acceptance of the case in principle for establishing the Civil Service in Statute and will publish a draft Bill for consultation.
• The appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner should be made after consultation with opposition leaders.
• That the Ministerial Code should be amended to make clear that all Ministers are personally accountable to the PM and to Parliament for the management and discipline of their Special Advisers.

However, the Committee is disappointed that core recommendations have not been accepted. These include -

• That the Adviser on Ministerial Interests is treated only as ‘an additional’ source of professional advice ‘as required’, and has no mandatory involvement where conflicts of interests arise.

• That there is a rejection of the proposal that Special Advisers should be defined as a category of government servant distinct from the Civil Service and that Parliament should set a limit on the number of Special Advisers.
• That the Government has rejected the proposal that the existence of two posts in the Prime Ministers Office with executive powers should be a matter for Parliamentary debate and agreement.

The Committee is especially concerned that some of the Government’s responses appear to diverge significantly from the approach recommended in the Committee’s Report. Two important examples of such divergence are:

• That the Government appears to favour giving Ministers the selection decision in the recruitment of Civil Servants by open competition. The risk here is that the adoption of such a process – to be discussed with the Commissioners – could lead to a politicisation of the Civil Service.
• That the proposed amendment of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers will actually increase the powers of Special Advisers over Civil Servants. The proposed amendment says that Special Advisers can: ‘convey to officials Ministers’ views, instructions and work priorities, including on issues of presentation’. This seems to enhance the position of Special Advisers and confuses accountability within the Department. The amendment also says Special Advisers can: ‘hold meetings with officials to discuss the advice being put to Ministers’. The risk here is that Ministers will not receive objective independent and impartial advice from the Civil Service.

So to sum up our views, the Committee’s Report and the Government’s response deal with matters which go to the heart of the way this country is governed. Ultimately these are matters for Parliament and we hope that there is an early opportunity for Parliament to debate and consider these issues.

For its part the Committee has doubts whether the measures described in the Government’s Response will, taken together, bring the necessary clarity about the proper boundaries within the Executive between Ministers, Special Advisers and the Permanent Civil Service and the right degree of security about their maintenance. In short, we believe that the Government’s response represents a seriously missed opportunity to enhance public trust in the processes of Government.