Lord Knight has raised the issue of poor or inadequate ministerial responses. This is not a problem confined to the Lords (see my earlier post on last week’s debate in the Commons on reducing the number of ministers) or to this Parliament. It is an enduring issue. The problem in large part is because ministers enter office usually without any grounding or training in what is expected of them.
Some years ago I undertook research on the role of senior ministers in British Government. One of the problems was the extent to which ministers entered office and were left to their own devices in deciding what was needed. There was little or no guidance and no sharing of best practice. Each basically was left to re-invent the wheel; not all were proficient in doing so. There have been moves since to improve the situation. Before the 1997 general election, there was an attempt to provide guidance to members of the Shadow Cabinet in preparation for ministerial office, but this – as Jonathan Powell notes in his book, The New Machiavelli – was not particularly successful. There is now more of an effort to disseminate best practice and some training is available through the National School of Government.
I have tabled questions to find out how many ministers in the new Parliament have availed themselves of the training available. According to the answer I received, over 30 ministers have had some induction training. However, only nine ministers have sought help with leadership development and the same number have had individual briefings on Parliamentary work and internal legislative processes. Only three ministers have had expert finance and governance briefings.
The training marks a step forward but a limited one. There is a case for more extensive induction and training, indeed for it to be a requirement rather than an optional extra. I shall be pursuing the issue, not least to see how many senior ministers have been among those receiving training.
Each basically was left to re-invent the wheel; not all were proficient in doing so. There have been moves since to improve the situation.
At such a time surely THEN the select committees can be very helpful in goading the minister/secretary in a helpful and creative way? There would be no guarantee of it, but it’s quite likely.
When there is a change of government it would certainly be more difficult, many of the select committee members being new to each other as well.
The NSG is a neat idea; I wonder whether any new non-cabinet members, ie new to parliament, were able to take advantage of it too?
If you recall in 1997, which was very exceptional, there was quite a number of new members who had never been near a debating chamber before, getting elected.
The school of hard parliamentary knocks!
Twm O’r Nant: I agree. Select committees can be valuable both for constructive examination of ministers and as training grounds for prospective ministers. Aspirant ministers may benefit from getting to know the House, spending time in the chamber, serving on committees and getting to know, and appreciate, how the parliamentary process works. There are problems when some ministers have little parliamentary service and also, for that matter, little experience of running anything.
I gather the NSG may be a candidate for the cuts.
The reason why many Ministers don’t perform well at the Despatch Box is because the communication with the civil servants in their box does not work properly. 4 or 5 experts from the government department sit in a box at the side of the Chamber and pass messages to the Minister at the Despatch Box. These messages are sometimes hand written, but more often are pages from briefing notes with the relevant part underlined. Usually the box will react to a Question, but an alert Whip on the government bench will go to the box and get the response quickly for the Minister at the same time ensuring that it is the right response.
This was superbly done when Baroness Wilcox responded to the debate on Lord Browne’s Report on University Funding. When she was poorly served in earlier debates, her responses were very weak.
There is no point in hiding this source of information. It is perfectly visible. Indeed some Ministers are occasionally advised, by the questioner to wait for “the box” so they get the answer right. On other occasions you just keep talking until the information arrives.
Many years ago I did suggest that a screen could be set into the Despatch Box so that the messages could be sent electronically, but this was a modernisation too far.
Bear with me on this one and all will become clear.
I make a lot of the rules and regs in our house but most of the information comes from my lovely wife. I assess the info and try to make an informed decision.
Now for years I was quite happy with the fact that I was making decisions that my wife was always in agreement with until it dawned on me that the way the information was being relayed to me meant the decision was already made but I didn`t know it. I had some really good idea`s but they weren`t mine, infact I was being manipulated. Of course not in an unkind fashion.
This raises issues in terms of the Civil Servants involved in presenting evidence or information. Perhaps because of TV such as “Yes Minister” I question who is the real power, Ministers and Governments come and go but I presume, I really do not know, civil servants stay in their position. It would be silly if they didn`t as they know more than any, their field.
The Government and Ministers are accountable but what of the people behind the scenes, the civil servants. They`re not elected but perhaps have some of the most powerful positions in the country. Certainly we need them, after all Mr.Happy MP who just got a promotion to Minister for Education, has no kids and it`s 20 years since he attended school. Someone surely has to guide him ?
I`m unsure as to how powerful these civil servants are but I do know that information relayed in a certain way will guarantee a specific reaction with most people.
The more one looks at our system the more it seem`s that it is organised chaos.
Of course Ministers will never have all the answers at the despatch box, law is extremely complex as is the system in any field. I do though expect that any part of our Political system is entitled to answers, should they not be available at that moment one would expect that it be followed up with communication outside the debate. That should not be used as an excuse not to give an answer at that time though, if one is known.
Perhaps Ministers should be qualified in their field before undertaking the position. You can`t just take a Union rep and make him Managing Director of Sainsburys. The people working for this Nation, the tax payers, are entitled to expect their leaders are suitably qualified surely ?
I often wonder why it takes so long to become a Barrister to interpret and study law and so little time to become a maker of law.
As for the Civil Service information givers only you can tell if she`s a good wife or not, either way you can bet they`ll be able to predict your reaction in a very short timeframe of knowing you.
Lord Haskel: Are we really being unreasonable in expecting that ministers have a sufficient mastery of their brief that they know the answer to most questions and seek assistance only on the more technical or most complex areas? It’s something that would be the norm in a large business.
The problem in large part is because ministers enter office usually without any grounding or training in what is expected of them.
===============
OK, I’ll take the bait.
Name the incompetents.
There are problems when some ministers have little parliamentary service and also, for that matter, little experience of running anything.
That would be amusing, even witty.. if it were not as serious a comment.
that the messages could be sent electronically, but this was a modernisation too far.
What Noble Lord Haskel suggests is a cool idea, but piecemeal. In a thoroughly modern chamber, say a reconstructed House of lords in a fan, or horse shoe shape, for no more than 200 members, then ministers in the lords could get such messages on screen.
On one occasion I stood in for Lord Irvine, since he did not have his brief and he did not have his staff, with him, (at Select committee, it is true) Somebody was sent dashing off for his notes whilst I said something about which I knew unashamedly little, until he returned.
Sorry about the triplication of post. There must be better ways of highlighting quoted remarks.
Carl.H: The point of a good minister is to ensure that civil servants are on tap and not on top. There is little point in a minister being a mouthpiece for officials’ notes. Research, albeit now somewhat dated, by Bruce Headey found that what civil servants looked for in ministers was a capacity to fight departmental battles in Cabinet and to ‘take a view’ (that is, make a decision). Civil servants generally prefer ministers who know their own minds, who will listen to advice but then decide for themselves. Once a decision is taken, officials then give effect to it.
PS Sorry my response doesn’t come immediately after your comment. I’m encountering technical problems!
The Reply option has not been working I belive since yesterday.
“What civil servants looked for in ministers was a capacity to fight departmental battles in Cabinet and to ‘take a view’ (that is, make a decision). Civil servants generally prefer ministers who know their own minds, who will listen to advice but then decide for themselves. Once a decision is taken, officials then give effect to it.”
Definitely sounds like the wife !
Lord Norton: I’ve experienced the same problem. Replies no longer seem to be working!
Welcome to MyWorld.
In the real world induction is an absolute must for employees who are new to their post. In part, this is to minimise any such claims made against their employer at a later date.
Lord Young may be making inroads against the bizarre and the ridiculous results of employment legislation but I am not a fan of waiting for an old regulation to be replaced by a new one.
May I suggest the PM (oh OK, the Deputy PM as well) be given the same responsiblities towards their ‘staff’ as I have to bear? If so, I predict one of two consequences: either the number of ministers/aides/photographers will be substantially reduced (hooray!) or a ‘toute suite’ change of employment laws (hooray!).
The case for strengthening ministerial training seems well made and invites action
by the House of Lords.