I say at the outset that I do not intend to press my amendments to a vote. One good reason is that, unfortunately, there are some slight technical errors. However, they are important amendments and I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will at least consider incorporating their spirit, and even some of their wording, into the Bill at a later stage. They are about special advisers and seek to replace the term "special" with "ministerial", so that we know precisely to whom the advisers are addressing their advice. It is a more accurate word and it would clarify the role of special advisers in future if they were called "ministerial advisers".
The Public Administration Committee, of which I am delighted to be a member, has discussed the role of special advisers at some length. Perhaps other Members also discussed this issue during the debate, but there is a history to special advisers with which I have some familiarity. In the 1970s, I knew Tony Benn and his special advisers. However, the famous Francis Cripps and Frances Morrell operated strictly as his political advisers; they did not have a role in advising or instructing civil servants. What they did was useful and legitimate, although it did not please the civil servants at the time. Tony Benn's habit was to speak first thing in the morning to his personal political advisers and then later to the civil servants, so that he was well prepared for debating with them later in the day. That was seen then by the civil servants as untoward.
However, under Tony Blair the power of special advisers went way beyond that; they took on a much more powerful role. They were effectively directing civil servants, acting as an Executive layer between Ministers and civil servants. This was something new, and it looked as though it was politicising the civil service in an unacceptable way. I was critical of that at the time, and I think we have rowed back from that arrangement to some extent.
At the time, however, things went even further than that. Some of the special advisers in Downing street were actually giving instructions over the heads of Ministers. At least two former senior Ministers are on record as complaining that their role was being marginalised. They were being kept out of the picture because policy was being passed from Downing street direct to the civil servants by special advisers, almost making the Ministers irrelevant. I am glad to say that that has changed.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Kelvin Hopkins
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 3 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
498 c817 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:45:51 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_595247
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_595247
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_595247