The Role of the Civil Service in Cabinet Government.

[Kirkhill]

David Cameron has released his fellow ministers to campaign against his preferred Brexit policy while remaining as ministers in his government.  Those ministers are still held accountable for their actions in parliament during question period.

Concurrently his senior civil servant (in Canada the equivalent, I believe is recently appointed Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary of the Cabinet), has advised departmental bureaucrats that they may not share data with Eurosceptic ministers, or work against government policy, even when it means working against their own minister who is responsible for their work.

All of this leaves me scratching my head.  And probably a few others.

I think the situation is further complicated if I throw in the notion of the Prime Minister not being supreme in Cabinet but only Primus Inter Pares.

Cabinet is a subset of the Privy Council which actually reports to and is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the PM. I believe the Privy Council in general and the Cabinet in particular can revolt and toss the PM as has happened to a number of sitting PMs in the UK.  Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.  Once appointed they, ministers, are no longer subject to the PM's discipline except as they allow the discipline to be applied for party purposes (ie getting re-nominated, re-elected) and the PM has the support of the majority of the rest of Cabinet.

Does this mean that if the PM were to fire half his Cabinet he runs the risk of in turn being fired? 

And what does it mean for the credibility of the Civil Service if they are told to ignore their ministers?

This is a Brit problem but given our identical system it appears to me that the questions would be the same here.

ERC.  Are you there? 

Jeremy Heywood to face questions over ban on data for Eurosceptic ministers


Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service, ordered civil servants to deny ministers who want to campaign to leave the EU access to government statistics and research

By Tim Ross, Senior Political Correspondent10:00PM GMT 27 Feb 2016

David Cameron’s most senior official will be summoned before a parliamentary inquiry to explain why he has banned Eurosceptic ministers from seeing their own official papers in the run up to the referendum.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service, ordered civil servants to deny ministers who want to campaign to leave the EU access to government statistics and research.

It is a recipe for dispute and confusion about what should be objective facts and statistics.


In a letter last week, he said it would not be “appropriate” for civil servants to allow ministers campaigning to leave the EU to see “official departmental papers” relating to Europe before the poll on June 23.

Civil servants must also not help Eurosceptic ministers prepare speeches or briefings opposing the UK’s EU membership, he warned.
One Eurosceptic government source said civil servants had been told to spy on Leave supporters in Whitehall, adding: “We are definitely being watched.”

Now Sir Jeremy is facing a furious backlash from MPs and aides. Iain Duncan Smith, one of six Eurosceptic Cabinet ministers, said he will defy the Downing Street ban and continue to scrutinise all documents that come from his department.

On Tuesday the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs select committee will question Sir Jeremy over his handling of the issue.

The row has fuelled anger among Eurosceptics that Downing Street is unfairly using the full might of the government machine to campaign against Britain leaving the EU, and trying to tie the hands of respected Cabinet ministers campaigning for Brexit.
Concerns have also been raised that both the campaigns to Remain in and Leave the EU will not have equal access to accurate figures in order to make their cases responsibly to voters.

The ban could mean that Downing Street orders officials to produce figures or research which would help make the case for EU membership, behind the backs of their own Eurosceptic ministers.

These ministers fear they will be kept in the dark about any requests from Number 10 for data from their own departments.
Yet the same Eurosceptic ministers would still be responsible for the accuracy of all such research which their departments produced, even though they will have no means to approve it – or request additional checks - before it is released.

Bernard Jenkin, the Tory MP who chairs the select committee, said: “We are expecting to cross examine Sir Jeremy Heywood on Tuesday afternoon.

"There are issues arising from his letter concerning the impartiality of the Civil Service, the ability to hold Whitehall departments accountable to Parliament through their ministers, and about the accuracy and impartiality of the information which will be used by both sides in the campaign.

“I have had several ministers seeking my advice as chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the question of whether civil servants are obliged to obey the instruction to deny ministers sight of what Downing Street and the Cabinet office may be asking for.

One leading Eurosceptic said ministers would struggle to work together "harmoniously" again after the referendum if Downing Street was seen to have "stacked up an advantage to themselves" in the campaign.

Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, said: "All those involved have got to be extremely careful to ensure that public money is not spent inappropriately by either side."

Mr Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said that as the “seal-holder” of his department he had no intention of relinquishing control over statistics and research produced by his officials.

“As a Cabinet minister I am responsible for all matters that are published and produced from the department and I am answerable to Parliament for that. So all matters will come through my office, like they always do,” Mr Duncan Smith said.

“My officials and I all believe that I must have the right to continue to look at this."

Downing Street sources said Sir Jeremy was simply providing guidance on how the referendum would affect civil servants working in departments whose ministers were campaigning for Brexit.

The government’s position is in favour of Britain’s continuing membership of the EU but Mr Cameron has given ministers permission to campaign for Brexit in a “personal capacity”, a Number 10 source said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12176293/Jeremy-Heywood-to-face-questions-over-ban-on-data-for-Eurosceptic-ministers.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

I await ERC's sage words, but on this one ...

... And what does it mean for the credibility of the Civil Service if they are told to ignore their ministers? ...

... one might not be considered working against the Minister but for the DM - my understanding is that the bureaucrats "work for/report to" the DM as opposed to "working for/reporting to" the Minister. 

Mind you, since the Minister and the DM both have that line back to the PM's box, it would be interesting to see how this would work in practice.  Ministers campaigning against the PM's stance might be considered in the same situation as when they're doing party political work?

Good questions - I await more education.

 

[George Wallace]

I await ERC's sage words, but on this one ...... one might not be considered working against the Minister but for the DM - my understanding is that the bureaucrats "work for/report to" the DM as opposed to "working for/reporting to" the Minister. 

Mind you, since the Minister and the DM both have that line back to the PM's box, it would be interesting to see how this would work in practice.  Ministers campaigning against the PM's stance might be considered in the same situation as when they're doing party political work?

Good questions - I await more education.

Did not members of the Department of Foreign Affairs get exposed in the Hillary Clinton Tapes as going against direction from the Minister well prior to the Oct 2016 election? 

 

[Kirkhill]

I await ERC's sage words, but on this one ...... one might not be considered working against the Minister but for the DM - my understanding is that the bureaucrats "work for/report to" the DM as opposed to "working for/reporting to" the Minister. 

Mind you, since the Minister and the DM both have that line back to the PM's box, it would be interesting to see how this would work in practice.  Ministers campaigning against the PM's stance might be considered in the same situation as when they're doing party political work?

Good questions - I await more education.

But it isn't the DM that is answerable for the department or the budget. That falls to the minister.

I was under the impression that the DM was not the CO, but rather an RSM.  Like the CO the Minister holds the commission.  Not the DM.  The Minister therefore is answerable.

Or putting it another way - the DM is the Sigs Officer in an Infantry Battalion.  His promotion may not depend on the CO but the CO can fire him from the position and demand a replacement.

 

[Old Sweat]

Except that in our practice the minister cannot fire the DM. I am really torn here, but I suspect that the PM and the Secretary have agreed on this. This is one of the things that just don't work in the Westminster political/public service interface and certainly the Barons forget to address it at Runnymede.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Or putting it another way - the DM is the Sigs Officer in an Infantry Battalion.  His promotion may not depend on the CO but the CO can fire him from the position and demand a replacement.

Using your analogy, the DM would be an RSM appointed by (and is also responsible to) the Brigade commander, even if s/he works for the CO.  This, from a PCO publication for DM's:

... The Prime Minister is responsible for the unity and direction of the Ministry and the government's policies. Thus, while Responsibility in the Constitution notes that a Deputy Minister's “supreme loyalty” is to the Minister, Deputy Ministers in the Government of Canada are also accountable to the Prime Minister, through the Clerk, to support the Minister in a way that is consistent with the agenda and direction of the government as whole. In this way, Deputy Ministers contribute to the unity of the government they serve ...

 

[Kirkhill]

But if the Prime Minister loses the confidence of his Cabinet?  Whose government is it?

And there were no civil servants at Runnymede... thank gawd.  Scribes galore perhaps, but no civil service.

 

[Good2Golf]

But it isn't the DM that is answerable for the department or the budget. That falls to the minister.

I was under the impression that the DM was not the CO, but rather an RSM.  Like the CO the Minister holds the commission.  Not the DM.  The Minister therefore is answerable.

Or putting it another way - the DM is the Sigs Officer in an Infantry Battalion.  His promotion may not depend on the CO but the CO can fire him from the position and demand a replacement.

This analogy is not particularly accurate where the DM is concerned...perhaps describing someone with at least three bosses would be more accurate.  The Deputy Head (as the DM is usually referred to in Government Policies) has a tri-fold chain of responsibility to: Minister (direct); PM (through the Clerk of the Privy Council); and the Treasury Board (through the Secretary).

By way of example (using one of the numerous TB policies), the Policy on the Management of Executives directs that:

3.2 The deputy head is accountable to his or her minister, to the Prime Minister through the Clerk of the Privy Council, and to the Treasury Board, for the management of executives in accordance with this policy and within the spirit and intent of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service.

A visit to the Treasury Board website on Policies, Directives, Standards and Guidelines (literally hundreds of them) will give lots of opportunity to see just how many responsibilities the DM holds, to a number of masters.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[George Wallace]

But if the Prime Minister loses the confidence of his Cabinet?  Whose government is it?

And there were no civil servants at Runnymede... thank gawd.  Scribes galore perhaps, but no civil service.

Well....In a way, the Scribes were the civil service of the day........and no one at the time
was able to read what they scribed, so an ATI request may turn up inconsistencies in what we thought transpired...... > 

  [

 

[Kirkhill]

:goodpost:

 

[Kirkhill]

This analogy is not particularly accurate where the DM is concerned...perhaps describing someone with at least three bosses would be more accurate.  The Deputy Head (as the DM is usually referred to in Government Policies) has a tri-fold chain of responsibility to: Minister (direct); PM (through the Clerk of the Privy Council); and the Treasury Board (through the Secretary).

By way of example (using one of the numerous TB policies), the Policy on the Management of Executives directs that:

A visit to the Treasury Board website on Policies, Directives, Standards and Guidelines (literally hundreds of them) will give lots of opportunity to see just how many responsibilities the DM holds, to a number of masters.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Point taken but:

The Minister and the Deputy Minister have irreconcilable differences.  Wouldn't the Minister go to the PM and request a replacement?  Would the Clerk of the the Privy Council, recently appointed by the PM to replace another recently appointed impartial Clerk of the Privy Counci, not take direction from the PM or would he the Clerk decide that he needed his man in that department regardless of the wishes of the PM and his Minister? 

With respect to the PM is he likely to over-ride the wishes of his Minister to keep his impartial sycophant in place and risk the wrath of a rebellious Cabinet?

Of course, in Canada, there is the issue of extra-parliamentary Party constitutions that give the PM (or rather the Party) the upper hand in Cabinet.

Short form: an unholy mess?

 

[Good2Golf]

Depends. 

If the Minister is experienced, and the DM a seasoned deputy, odds are they will reconcile their differences before the PM and Clerk have to get together and have a sit down.

The less experienced in a 'battle' will usually lose the fight, and most DMs have been around for a healthy amount of 'time served', particularly those of one of the central agencies or senior departments.

"...risk the wrath of a rebellious cabinet?" 

Your forgot to query the alternative: "Risk alienating the group of senior mandarins who play a critical role in making Government work (or not)?"

I would think that any PM worth their salt would take heed in the Clerk's advice, and not immediately default to flowing through any particular Minister's plaintive demands to replace a DM with whom they do not see eye to eye.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Kirkhill]

....
Your forgot to query the alternative: "Risk alienating the group of senior mandarins who play a critical role in making Government work (or not)?"

.....

Equally valid.

But the Civil Service is, as we are constantly reminded, impartial.  They wouldn't actively work against their elected masters.  Stephen Harper was surely mistaken.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't see this as a HUGE problem.

First: I think G2G is correct in the relationships of a Deputy to the rest of government.

The primary role of the minister is to provide that essential (to the Westminster system) accountability in parliament. (It is something that successive Canadian prime ministers starting with Pierre Trudeau, although he certainly wasn't the worst, have weakened.) We, the citizens, cannot hold the civil service to account ~ only the executive, using the PCO and the Treasury Board, can do that (and the PM holds the power over both). Ministers, like the PM and any MP, are independent political actors who have chosen to accept their party's whip and my reject it at any time.

    (Chris: it isn't just the cabinet that can toss out the PM; they (whoever wants to toss out the PM) need most of the caucus to do it. The government is the government only because it can persuade the sovereign
      (the GG in our case) that it has the confidence of the House of Commons; the PM is the PM only because (s)he has the confidence of the government caucus. See e.g. Australia who do this fairly often and, in my opinion, correctly.)

All that to say that ministers may have political (not, ever, policy) positions that differ from the government's on specific issues ... if their colleagues, including, especially, the PM, allow that then they may hold, even display divergent opinions and stay in cabinet. In that case it is right and proper for the Secretary (the Clerk in Canada)* to tell the Deputy Heads that they must exclude their ministers from discussions about that specific issue, Brexit in this case. The cabinet has decided that this is one of those (rare) cases where cabinet solidarity is not required; the issue is sui generis and political: the referendum was an election promise; the outcome was not; good Tories may disagree on this and still be good Tories. Most ministers will have, at best, only peripheral responsibilities to this, but see this Brexit "to do" list compiled by the Financial Times; my guess is that most of those items will need action only after an "Out!" vote and, I am almost certain, cabinet will need to be shuffled if that happens.

The constitution (the unwritten part) seems, to me, quite clear on the roles and rights of the civil service: it is a tool of the executive (the sovereign/GG) and enjoys all the rights and priviliges of that status. Prime Minister Harper, in an effort to shield ministers from their proper accountability and to ape the Americans, as Canadian popular opinion too often demands, tried to make Deputy Heads "accountable' to parliamentary committees. That was very bad policy and weak politics, too. I think that what David Cameron is doing is both constitutionally correct policy and good politics.

My  :2c:

_____
* This goes all the way back to the Cecils, pèr e et fils, William, Lord Burghley, and his son Robert, the Earl of Salisbury, who were styled by their sovereign (Elizabeth I), at their requests, as Secretary to the Council and Clerk of the Council respectively)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Thanks, ER!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Basically, the DM's are responsible to their Minister for the administration of their department and to the  Clerk of the Privy council (usually in its reduced form consisting in the Cabinet only) for the implementation of government policy. The Privy council sets the policy and the Ministers are responsible to the PM for the statement of policy originating from their department (on which, while being developed, the DM advises the Minister).

On the political side of things, whenever the Minister is involved in political activities, the DM and the department are to stay right out of it, and it is solely the purview of the political advisors to the Minister to act. This makes the current situation in the UK correct: the Ministers have been freed politically to take the position they wish, while the Civil Service can only work on behalf of the official policy of the government. On the other hand, while the Ministers who wish to campaign on a position adverse  to the government policy cannot breach their oath to secrecy of the Cabinet deliberations or other government confidential dealings, for whatever is not confidential and they know exists, they can always make an access to information request through their political staffers.

At least that's the theory.

Here is how the responsibility lines operate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo

 

[Edward Campbell]

... that's the theory.

Here is how the responsibility lines operate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo

Exactly right, OGBD. Too many people forget that "Yes, Minister" was a documentary, not a sitcom.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Under the Liberal and early on under the CPC we used to deal directly with M.O. requests, then it all shifted to flowing through the D.M.'s and remains that way for day to day stuff.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Under the Liberal and early on under the CPC we used to deal directly with M.O. requests, then it all shifted to flowing through the D.M.'s and remains that way for day to day stuff.

Same for us - I took a LOT of calls from MO for a mere PM-04 (albeit in Comms, but still ...) in a regional office coming in from off the street.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK, some further thoughts.

I get that there are rules but regardless of rules people are people.  And anybody that is reporting to three masters has no masters.  They have three clients, one of whom is their paymaster.  And then the politics (office level) start.

With respect to "You can campaign for Brexit on your own time but you're working for me!"  I get that too.

Having said that,

As our recently elected young PM keeps alluding to - information gathered for public purposes should serve the public and not the party.  If information is being withheld because it suits the cause, or if push polls are being generated for like reason the I perceive a problem.

And if the minister is aware of the problem......  ???

PS MO ?  Minister's Office?