The ‘Blogosphere’ has taken on its own controversy this week. Damian McBride’s plans to work with Derek Draper on a ‘Red Rag’ blog to smear senior Conservatives raises questions beyond the reputation of the individuals concerned – both the smeared and the smearing. Damian McBride was a Special Adviser (or ‘Spad’, as they are known) to the Prime Minister. When Gordon Brown first came to Number 10, he took the bold step of removing from special advisers any ability to instruct civil servants – an important point of process, since it should be accountable Ministers who set policy for civil servants to implement, not political advisers acting as sort of proxy junior ministers without the inconvenience of reporting to Parliament on their actions and their instructions.
Brown’s move was supposed to be part of the mood music for his Constitutional Renewal Bill, which would for the first time put the Civil Service on a statutory footing to reinforce its neutrality. He said, ‘the core principles governing it will no longer be set at the discretion of the executive but will be legislated by Parliament – and so this Government has finally responded to the central recommendation of the Northcote-Trevelyan report on the civil service made over 150 years ago in 1854.’ He spoke in the past tense about something he had yet to do, and still hasn’t delivered.
Part of the package should have been proper legal clarification on the role of special advisers. At present there is a loose code of conduct, but no clear idea about how it should be enforced. Some of what it states should go without saying ‘Special advisers should conduct themselves with integrity and honesty.’ Some provisions more complex, ‘Special advisers should not use official resources for party political activity.’ In some instances it may be difficult to see the line between party political activity and promoting government policy, but of course in McBride’s case, the distinction was clear. He was using a Number 10 email account to propose partisan (and inaccurate) smears against an opponent. Yet there was – briefly – a sense that he could have kept his job but for media pressure. Had he tried to stay, how would the code have been enforced against him, and who would have enforced it?
It’s timely therefore that my Constitutional Renewal Bill (comments still welcome) would make clear the role of Special Advisers in relation to Ministers, allow for a clear limit on their number (which has burgeoned in the last decade), provide for annual reports on the work they do, and why those employed are suitable for the roles they undertake, and make the code of conduct a legal document endorsed by Parliament.
Meanwhile, what of the latest twist in the affair of the Damian (Green), the MP who was arrested and whose office in the House of Commons was searched by the police? The Home Secretary says that the decision on prosecutions was the responsibility of the Director for Public Prosecutions. But in other cases, it is the Attorney General – a politician and a party appointee. This too is a mess, and is addressed by reforms proposed by my Bill.
The two affairs together are emblematic of the collapse in public confidence that our political system faces. Everyday we have new examples of the desperate need to revive not just our economy but the health of our politics too. After all, if people feel they cannot and will not be heard by politicians, that those who act in the public interest might be arrested, and that those who employ partisan hacks to engage in ‘dark arts’ will go unchecked, it’s little wonder that voters are left feeling politics makes no difference and politicians are least well placed to tackle the big economic crisis we face.
The only news I have as yet on getting a second reading for my Constitutional Renewal Bill – which would go some way (though not, by any means, all the way) to addressing these problems – is that there is no time for it until after the summer. That seems ridiculous since this is the lightest legislative programme since Labour came to power, and much of what is there is pointless. Why not scrap the absurd “Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill” (which does little to enhance any of the three objectives) and get on with reforming our politics instead?
PS: Has anyone spotted our obvious mistake in the Bill?
I freely admit to being an anorak in both the political and trainspotting sense, so for me the term ‘Spad’ brings to mind a term far more familiar to trainspotters: Signal Passed At Danger (SPAD). (Apologies for the Wikipedia link, but it’s the most complete source of information I’ve found online.)
In this case, the trainspotting term seems surprisingly apt to describe this situation. I wonder if it might be worth looking at the railways’ approach to preventing and investigating SPADs for guidance in curbing the excesses of political ‘Spads’? (I’m only half-joking here.)
Lord Tyler I hope that your bill does make progress from what you say it shall try and clean up the political process. I am appalled at the amount of special advisers Gordon Brown has he has put up the cost of govt without improving the outcome. I cannot see the need for so many of them, if the govt has civil servants for information and party workers for strategy why do they need special advisers. Why can politician’s stick to there guns and belief in themselves and there own ideas without having people telling them what to do. Gordon Brown says he has conviction, I doubt him as he tends to do what his advisers tell him not necessary what his brain and heart tell him. It also sees that special advisers do a “none job” as all they want to do is throw mud at other politicians.
Is the obvious mistake that “Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill” should (in my opinions) have a second comma and read “Local Democracy, Economic Development, and Construction Bill”?
I believe that SPADs are bound by some parts of the Civil Service Code so there ought to be a line of action but that all assumes that the civil service leadership has the will or interest in enforcing the same.
The Damiam Green affair would seem some sort of Orwellian nightmare if it wasn’t for the epic demonstration of bureaucratic incompetence by sections of the police and officials in parliament. However, I’m not sure that your bill (or indeed the new guidance about police entering parliamentary offices) addresses the core issue directly: that MPs professional correspondence – at their parliamentary or other offices – ought to be subject to some of the same protections as would be afforded under legal professional privilege. (It is hard to see why any constituent would now write about any sensitive matter – especially over complaints about the police if they believe it could be read) Does anyone believe that if some form of privilege had existed that this whole train of events would have occurred or at least not in anything like the same manner. The DPP/AG jurisdiction is a sound point, which I agree with, but it matters only after the fact.
On your bill, one thing I thought after I posted my original questions/comments. If the belief behind the fixed term parliaments was to take the politics out of the timing of the electoral process was there discussion about the present situation whereby the parties are able to control when motions are moved in the commons to call by-elections? The tighter a governments majority the more this becomes any obvious distortion of the electoral process.
What noises have you had from within the other opposition/XB groups about their willingness to give the bill a fair run?
To Bed with a Trollope [if only..] – that is an amusing and possibly effective idea !
I seem to recall John Prescott getting his knickers in a twist about the resolution of ‘SPADs’ by saying that it would be resolved by ‘Train Protection’..
He was saying it so quickly he hoped no one would notice the very big difference between a cheap-and-cheerful reactive ‘Train Protection Warning System’ [which is what they were going to implement] and the much more effective, ‘pro-active’, and hence more costly, ‘Automated Train Protection’ system.
Any sort of warning would be handy when the ‘Spads’ are crossing the line again in Number 10.
I feel that more that renewing public engagement in the political process cannot be fixed with just one bill (though that may help). I think we need to go to the schools and educate our children about rights, history and politics so that when they come out they know enough about the system (and hopefully care enough) to pay attention to elections, what the Government and the other parties are doing, and world affairs.
Damian Green and McBride’s stories are just the latest in a long line of political scandals that give the impression the Government is trying to stifle debate. I know they won’t be the last.
Thanks to all for their very helpful and positive comments.
I particularly wanted to respond to Francisco’s comment that “renewing public engagement in the political process cannot be fixed with just one bill (though that may help)”. That’s a very wise warning.
However, we have to start somewhere. I too believe in evolutionary change, and that there is merit in setting out the desirable way forward, even if it is not entirely comprehensive or all achievable in the near future. At least I – and those who agree with me, across the three parties – put forward a positive agenda for change which could kick-start this urgent process. It remains to be seen whether the Government will take the challenge sufficiently seriously.
By the way, I think I should own up to the obvious mistake in my Constitutional Renewal Bill: in Clause 43 we stipulate that the next General Election must take place on “7th May 2010”. However (until the law changes) polling must take place on a Thursday, and that is, in my diary, a Friday !
My plea in mitigation is that I appear to be the only person to have noticed – even the ever-vigilant Clerks in the House of Lords did correct my draft.
Lord Tyler: “My plea in mitigation is that I appear to be the only person to have noticed – even the ever-vigilant Clerks in the House of Lords did correct my draft.”
Not So! Iain Dale picked up on this and it was duly reported upon in the blog. Who has not been paying attention?
Ref: Comment, Bedd Gelert April 2, 2009 at 11:21 am
http://lordsoftheblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/improving-the-law-making-process/
Senex: Oh dear, I read the same story on both sources and still forgot all about it!