Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill debate
Eleanor Laing debates the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill which aims to help rebuild trust in our democratic institutions. She particularly highlights how the role of Special Advisors has changed in the past 12 years.
Special Advisers code
Mrs. Laing: It is pleasure to agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) has just said. [Interruption.] I hope that I am not doing him any harm in doing so. It is sad that the idea of the special adviser was first invented to assist Ministers and civil servants, so that such a person could play a hybrid role between the civil servant and the political office and political duties of the Minister.
I do not think that this is declaring an interest, but I should say that I was a special adviser from 1990 to 1994. I recall very well the mostly unwritten code that we observed carefully. There was no question in those days of special advisers telling civil servants what to do. I know that the Lord Chancellor would agree with my comments—were he in the Chamber—and those of the hon. Member for Luton, North, because he was one of the first special advisers when he worked for the then Mrs. Barbara Castle. He undertook that position with the same distinction that he has shown since, and there was no doubt whatsoever as to what special advisers did.
What is sad is the fact that, as the hon. Member for Luton, North described, the Government decided in 1997 to change the role of special advisers and almost overnight increased their number from 38 to 70 and more. More importantly, they changed their role and allowed special advisers to give instructions to civil servants, thereby undermining the position of civil servants. It is a pity that we cannot have a full debate on that this evening. We have only five minutes left and I shall curtail my remarks so that others will have an opportunity to speak, but I would have liked a full debate on that very issue. The fact that I cannot demonstrates that what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said when we debated the programme motion earlier this evening has proven to be totally correct. We could have gone on debating this tomorrow, because it is a very important matter.
David Howarth rose—
Mrs. Laing: Before the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) makes his speech—and I shall give way to him in a second—may I say that I entirely agree with his amendments 22 to 25, on restricted duties?
David Howarth: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. In fact, I was simply going to ask her whether she would support amendment 22 in the Lobby. It lays down the principle that she was talking about, which is that civil servants should not be instructed by special advisers for precisely the reasons that she gave and because it undermines the proper relationship between political appointees and the civil service. If she is of that opinion, I would like to test the opinion of the Committee on that amendment.
Mrs. Laing: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not think that it is necessary for the matter to be tested in the Lobby, but in principle I agree entirely with what he has to say.
It is sad that the once noble role of special adviser—a person who served the civil service, Ministers, Parliament and therefore the people very well—has been so badly undermined by this Government over the past 12 years. I note that the Minister disagrees, but I hope that she will tell us right now that that balance will be redressed so that special advisers can go back to being proper special advisers again.
Dr. Tony Wright: I shall be extremely brief. It is unfortunate—in fact, that is hardly the word—that we have reached a part of the Bill that has some real meat in it and there is simply no time to discuss it. I hope that the Government will say how we can deal with the rest of the Bill, because at the moment the Committee will be unable to do so. Over the years, we have had endless arguments about special advisers, and we do not need to repeat them now. Let us hope that we have got it out of our system, but surely we must agree that we have to know what special advisers can do and what they cannot do. In a Bill that sets down the core values of our system of our government, we need to say on the face of it what special advisers can and cannot do. Surely we have to test the will of the Committee on that.
