Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

There is no harm in making that designation more explicit, and giving it some teeth by entrenching it in statute. There is, of course, already a provision enabling a permanent secretary who feels that he or she is being required to do something that is not in the interests of the taxpayer to put in writing to the Secretary of State a request that he or she—the permanent secretary—be directed to implement the policy, but to my knowledge that has happened on only eight occasions in the past 12 years. It did not happen when tax credits were introduced. Arguably it should have, because it is understood that robust advice was given to the Chancellor to which he refused to listen. There is a strong case for saying that, given the circumstances, the chairman of the Revenue and the permanent secretary to the Treasury should have put in writing to the Chancellor that they needed to be directed, because their advice was that such action would be very harmful. In the circumstances in which this country now finds itself, with a ballooning public debt and a budget deficit that seems to be out of control, incredible care with taxpayers' money will be of central importance in the years that lie ahead. It seems to us really important that protection for civil servants against being required to do things that are not in the interests of taxpayers should be entrenched. We think that Ministers should have a statutory obligation to respect the impartiality of civil servants. We have a good deal of sympathy with a Liberal Democrat new clause, which we hope will be reached later. In the meantime, however, this amendment—which reflects the central importance for the whole Executive of respecting and acting in the interests of taxpayers—would provide an extremely valuable additional discipline. As I have said, it would provide protection for civil servants against being bullied into implementing policies that were not in the interests of the taxpayer.