Memorandum by Sir Christopher Foster
My book, British Government in Crisis,
attempts to chart changes in the processes of Government over
the last 25 years.[1]
There never was a Golden Age. There were many poor policies and
bad laws, many failures to cope with economic and other problems.
But generally there were processes and procedures at the heart
of Government which enabled first Cabinet to understand, revise
and agree the content of new policies and legislation, because
presented to ministers in cabinet papers; and then subsequently
for Parliament to scrutinise more effectively the consequent ministerial
statements, parliamentary papers and bills presented to it. There
were poor cabinet and parliamentary papers, but in general their
level of intelligibility, and therefore of discussions based on
them, was much higher than is possible to-day. For example, the
current Schools and Health White Papers would not have survived
challenge through the cabinet system so as to be open to such
varied interpretation as these white papers have been.[2]
I discuss the many causes of decay in these
working arrangements. Some of my observations on what happened
relate to changes in the way in which Cabinet works; the undermining
of the status and responsibilities of secretaries of state; the
growth of government business; the expanded role of political
advisers and media specialists; and external factors like changes
in the role of the media, the globalisation of the economy and
the much greater time many ministers spend abroad in European
and other international negotiations.
High among these causes, however, and as important
as any, are changes in relations between ministers and civil servants,
in particular the exclusion of senior civil servants from much
decisionmaking and policymaking at the highest levels, at least
on a basis which safeguards their impartiality and independence
of judgement. Again this is not to argue that civil servants were
in any sense perfect in the past, or to deny that in many respects
their training and skills have improved in the recent past, but
to maintain that the nature of the relationship of partnership
between them had many advantages in securing the better preparation
and implementation of new policies and laws.
The difference between ministers and civil servants
is often portrayed as if what is essential is that ministers do,
and officials do not, in their working life show allegiance to
a political party. Though true, that radically over-simplifies
what is involved. In the past even in the recent past, it has
been among the duties of civil servants to challenge the meaning
and practicality of policy and legislative proposals, the relevance
and soundness of the evidence on which they are based and the
clarity of their presentation, as well as to ensure that other
departments and public bodies concerned have been satisfactorily
consulted; and the issues they raised have been considered and
as far as possible met. Among their duties were to check the factual
accuracy of all speeches and statements ministers made and to
ensure that as far as possible ministers had the relevant evidence
when they made their decisions. The minister had the right to
make the final decision on departmental policy and on other matters—in
many instances subject to cabinet approval—and on how they
should be expressed, but they were expected to have regard to
their advice their officials gave them on these matters.
To ensure their independence of judgement in
the advice they gave ministers, it was as important as for judges
that their appointment, promotion and pay should not be in the
gift of ministers. In my opinion that requirement remains true
to day and is the essence of the case against political appointments,
promotions and interference in individual pay awards and bonuses.
Among the consequences of that decay therefore
are that Government white papers (and their equivalent) are frequently
badly argued, poorly evidenced and in other respects insufficiently
thought through, to be discussed and scrutinised sensibly so undermining
Parliament's constitutional function. The incompleteness of many
bills further hinders their intelligent scrutiny.
What follows are three extracts from my book
which develop these issues in discussing:
— How relations changed after 1979
and
— My views on how relations between
ministers and officials could best be modernised now.
4 February 2006
1 Hart Publishing, 2005, (www.hartpub.co.uk) Back
2
I discuss these issues further in my pamphlet, Why are we so
badly governed?, Public Management and Policy Association,
September 2005. Back
|
