DOCSLIB.ORG

Political Special Advisers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Political Special Advisers House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Political Special Advisers Written Evidence List of written evidence 1 Professor David Richards, Professor Martin Smith and Mr. Patrick Diamond (SPAD 01) 2 Lord Butler of Brockwell (SPAD 02) 3 Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) (SPAD 03) 4 Civil Service Commission (SPAD 04) 5 Professor Francesca Gains (University of Manchester) and Professor Gerry Stoker (University of Southampton) (SPAD 05) 6 Mr Simon Cramp (SPAD 06) 7 Michael Jacobs (SPAD 07) 8 Democratic Audit (SPAD 08) 9 Professor Robert Hazell, Dr Ben Yong, Peter Waller and Brian Walker – The Constitution Unit, University College London (SPAD 09) 10 Zoe Gruhn & Felicity Slater (SPAD 10) 11 RTHon Harriet Harman QC MP (SPAD 11) 12 Steve Bates (SPAD 12) 13 Cabinet Office (SPAD 13) Written evidence submitted by Professor David Richards, Professor Martin Smith and Mr. Patrick Diamond1 (SPAD 01) 1. The preamble to this Inquiry highlights the initial position adopted by the current Coalition Government towards special advisers [SpAds] quoting the Rt Hon Francis Maude MP, Minister for the Cabinet Office in July 2010: ‘Too often in recent years the Service has been marginalised, either through the spread of SpAds or the over-use of expensive consultants.’ We would take issue with the notion that Whitehall has been marginalised by the relative growth of SpAds, most notably after 1997. In many ways this is both a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the role played by SpAds within the British political system. Indeed, in terms of numbers and relative influence, there are very few special advisors in relation to permanent senior civil servants. 2. First, it is important to establish why SpAds should be regarded as playing a necessary, indeed crucial, part in the effective operation of good governance within the UK. The current Cabinet Office Code of Conduct for Special Advisers [June 2010] states that: ‘In order to provide effective assistance to Ministers, SpAds should work closely with the ministerial team and with permanent civil servants, and establish relationships of confidence and trust’. (Cabinet Office 2010: Para 7). In many ways, this is a reaffirmation of the core tenet underpinning minister-civil servant relations throughout the last one hundred years, as set out in Lord Haldane’s 1918 Report of the Machinery of Government: Ministry of Reconstruction. This Report formulated the view that the relationship between ministers and officials is in essence a symbiotic one, from which stems the convention that there should be no separation in the personality of ministers from their officials. Following the 1974 Wilson reforms, this principal was de facto extended to include SpAds, the three operating together effectively as a Holy Trinity. 3. This arrangement required that ministers, civil servants and SpAds be expected to work in a mutually beneficial and co-operative relationship based on a co-dependent rather than conflictual understanding of the governing process. From this perspective, the question as to ‘who benefits from SpAds’ is something of a misnomer. SpAds are a key resource in improving the overall quality of good governance, not actors who work to the benefit of just one group within the political system – be it ministers rather than civil servants. 1 David Richards and Martin Smith are both Professors of Politics at the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield. Mr. Patrick Diamond is a current doctoral student at the Department of Politics, University of Sheffield and formerly spent a decade as a special adviser in 10 Downing Street, the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Office. 4. The introduction of SpAds in 1974 occurred at a point when the nature of the governing arena was entering a period of change. The emergence of a variety of forces - europeanisation, internationalisation, devolution, marketisation [alongside regulation] and managerialism within the public services - collectively led to a much more complex policy-making arena. The cumulative effect of these forces was evidenced by the subsequent eclipsing of the traditional hierarchical model on which Whitehall operated, a feature pick-up on by the former Cabinet Secretary, Andrew Turnbull in his 2005 Valedictory Lecture. He rightly applauded the plurality of voices now being heard in the policy-making process: We [Civil Service] no longer have a monopoly over policy advice. Indeed, we welcome the fact that we are much more open to ideas from think-tanks, special advisers and frontline practitioners. In developing policy, we not only consult more widely than we used to, but involve outsiders to a far greater degree in the policy making process. 5. From this perspective, and as previous inquires addressing the role of SpAds have rightly highlighted, they have become a crucial, necessary and permanent part of the architecture of British Government. SpAds have an important role, particularly in terms of providing ‘political’ advice, developing alternative policy advice to the civil service, as a mechanism for testing policy advice and linking ministers to different constituencies from the normal Whitehall networks. Indeed, many of the policy innovations initiated within Whitehall over the last twenty years have resulted from strong working relationships between ministers, civil servants and SpAds. SpAds have helped to infuse the policy process with new ideas, for example by drawing on examples of best practice from other comparable countries and by drawing on the best recent evidence from research in the social sciences. The strength of the relationship between the British government and the UK social science community is partly the result of effective networking and dissemination by SpAds in Whitehall. Moreover, if they have a close relationship with the minister, SpAds can extend the Minister’s reach within a department by acting as a gatekeeper and as the Minister’s ‘eyes and ears’. By offering steers on the minister’s behalf, SpAds help to increase the efficacy of the policy-making process, particularly in large departments with complex and wide- ranging responsibilities where ministers are making dozens of crucial decisions on a daily basis. Indeed, many civil servants also acknowledge that SpAds play a crucial role in ensuring that the permanent bureaucracy in Whitehall is not politicised, and that civil servants do not have to cross the line between advising ministers, and engaging in political decision-making. This has helped to preserve the neutrality and probity of the British civil service, despite several decades of profound political and social change. 6. Of course, since 1974, there have been a number of well-documented individual cases where the actions of SpAds has led to tension either within an individual department or more broadly across government. Here, past examples might include: the political advisers, Frances Morell and Francis Cripps, during Tony Benn’s time as Secretary of State, first in Industry and then Energy; and a decade later, Alan Walters, Charles Powell and Bernard Ingham at No. 10 during the latter stages of the Thatcher Administration. Yet, up until 1997, for the most part, the political advisers working in departments beyond No. 10 and the Treasury did not draw any great criticism. Their role generated only a residual element of suspicion among some permanent Whitehall staff, and in the main an accommodating and mutually beneficial relationship tended to be the norm. 7. After 1997, as has been well-charted elsewhere, the role of SpAds changed, doubling in number from the Major years. SpAds during the Labour Government conformed to two types - policy advisers and public relations managers. In terms of the former, there was an increase in SpAds at the centre, particularly No. 10 to enhance strategy on policy and co-ordination. Elsewhere, the Labour Government’s view of the Government Information Service it inherited was that it was ill-equipped to deal with the pressures placed on it by a rapidly changing twenty-four hour, news-media industry. The response here was to increase the number of political communications advisers, one generally being allocated to each department. Where issues did arise over SpAds during this period, those implicated were predominantly drawn from the category of media advisers and included the likes of Charlie Whelan, Jo Moore and Damian McBride. 8. Yet, these incidents should be put into some perspective. An in-depth survey of SpAds spanning the Labour years revealed that the views of most ministers, civil servants and SpAds was that more often than not a productive and effective working relationship was established among this triumvirate in most departments (see Richards 2008). Where misgivings over SpAds within Whitehall arose, these tended to concern minor power-spats over control of access to ministers, alongside a broader unease on the part of some officials that their own monopoly as the ‘harbingers of expertise and knowledge’ was diminishing. 9. Here then it is important to dispel the myth that the greater use of SpAds inevitably leads to a ‘counter civil service’ or a ‘creeping form of politicisation’. Such views are often drawn from erroneous analogies with the US ‘spoils’ or the French cabinet systems. The notion that at their peak less than ninety-odd political appointees are capable of overwhelming or neutering the power and resources of a bureaucratic machine the size of Whitehall is ill-judged. 10. From this perspective, we urge caution against any moves to place a strict limit on the number of SpAds available to government. The perception is that these arguments tend to be formulated mainly by retired or former civil servants and ministers who wish to cling-on to a halcyon model of Whitehall that has long since been eclipsed. 11. At the same time, a special case should be made towards the central coordinating departments, in particular No. 10 and the Treasury which are somewhat different. The nature of the British political system affords substantial resources and power to departments, while the centre has historically always remained relatively under- resourced.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'Opposition-Craft': an Evaluative Framework for Official Opposition Parties in the United Kingdom Edward Henry Lack Submitte
    ‘Opposition-Craft’: An Evaluative Framework for Official Opposition Parties in the United Kingdom Edward Henry Lack Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD The University of Leeds, School of Politics and International Studies May, 2020 1 Intellectual Property and Publications Statements The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. ©2020 The University of Leeds and Edward Henry Lack The right of Edward Henry Lack to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 2 Acknowledgements Page I would like to thank Dr Victoria Honeyman and Dr Timothy Heppell of the School of Politics and International Studies, The University of Leeds, for their support and guidance in the production of this work. I would also like to thank my partner, Dr Ben Ramm and my parents, David and Linden Lack, for their encouragement and belief in my efforts to undertake this project. Finally, I would like to acknowledge those who took part in the research for this PhD thesis: Lord David Steel, Lord David Owen, Lord Chris Smith, Lord Andrew Adonis, Lord David Blunkett and Dame Caroline Spelman. 3 Abstract This thesis offers a distinctive and innovative framework for the study of effective official opposition politics in the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • ANTONY FISHER Champion of Liberty
    ANTONY FISHER Champion of Liberty Gerald Frost First published in Great Britain in 2002 by Profile Books Ltd. Copyright: Gerald Frost Condensed in 2008 by David Moller Copyright: Institute of Economic Affairs. Additional material on Dorian Fisher supplied by Linda Whetstone and on the Atlas Economic Research Foundation by John Blundell and Colleen Dyble. 1 Introduction When Antony Fisher died in San Francisco on July 9, 1988, aged 73, four weeks after being knighted in the Queen’s birthday honours list, the world was largely unaware of him or his influence. He was not listed in Who’s Who. He was not well known to the British or American media. He had never held major elected office. Although he had made – and lost – a considerable fortune he relied during his latter years on the financial support of a rich and devoted second wife. The belated knighthood, which fitted the tall, sparse, handsome Englishman like a glove, was almost the sole public recognition he received during his lifetime, and this did not come until he was terminally ill. Only two politicians, Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph, attended his memorial service. That, however, would probably have been more a matter of satisfaction than of regret, since throughout his life the former businessman and decorated World War II pilot displayed an ill-concealed contempt for the generality of politicians. He believed that their capacity for harm far outweighed their ability to do good. Among MPs generally, probably only a handful were aware of Fisher’s remarkable influence. Yet in founding the Institute of Economic Affairs, the London-based free-market think tank, he had played a crucial role in helping to reverse economic trends that many had judged to be irreversible, thereby changing the direction of British post-war politics.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Convention Against Corruption
    United Nations Convention against Corruption Self-assessment Name: UK Second Cycle Review-20180108-134632 Country: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Date of creation: 24/11/2017 Assessor: Renny Mendoza Assessor Position: International Policy Advisor: Joint Anti-Corruption Unit Release: 3.0.0.15 Comments: Completed self-assessment checklists should be sent to: Corruption and Economic Crime Section Division for Treaty Affairs United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Vienna International Centre PO Box 500 1400 Vienna, Austria Attn: KAMBERSKA Natasha Telephone: + (43) (1) 26060-4293 Telefax: + (43) (1) 26060-74293 E-mail: [email protected] A. General information A. General information 1. General information 1519 1 Focal point: Renny Mendoza 2 Institutions consulted: Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service, Serious Fraud Office, National Crime Agency, Her Majesty’s Treasury, Ministry of Justice, Financial Conduct Authority, HM Revenue and Customs, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Department for International Development. 3 Please provide information on the ratification/acceptance/approval/accession process of the United Nations Convention against Corruption in your country (date of ratification/acceptance/approval of/accession to the Convention, date of entry into force of the Convention in your country, procedure to be followed for ratification/acceptance/approval of/accession to international conventions etc.). UNCAC Ratification Signature date: 9 December 2003 Ratification date: 9 February 2006 Entry into force date: 11 March 2006 Procedure to be followed for ratification of international conventions: The United Kingdom (UK) is a ‘dualist’ state. The UK constitution accords no special status to treaties: rights and obligations created by treaties have no effect in UK law unless legislation is in force to give effect to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
    Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) Lord Justice Rix, Justice Forbes First Instance application for judicial review 14 December 2004 JUDGMENT Lord Justice Rix: 1 This is the judgment of the court to which both members have contributed. Introduction 2 The claimants in these proceedings are all relatives of deceased Iraqi civilians ("the deceased"), who have been killed by or in the course of action taken by British soldiers in the period following completion of major combat operations in Iraq and prior to the assumption of authority by the Iraqi Interim Government (i.e. the period 1 May 2003 to 28 June 2004). The defendant is the Secretary of State for Defence ("the Secretary of State"). 3 This judgment is concerned with the determination of two preliminary issues (as to which, see paragraphs 5 and 6 below) arising out of the claimants' application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's alleged failure and/or refusal: (i) to conduct independent inquiries into the deaths of the deceased, (ii) to accept liability for those deaths and (iii) to pay just satisfaction. 4 Stated in general terms, the claimants' application for judicial review concerns the legal responsibilities of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the HRA") in relation to the civilian deaths in question. It is the claimants' case (as originally pleaded) that the Secretary of State acted in breach of section 6 of the HRA, in particular by his violation of the procedural obligations under article 2 (the right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention"), in failing and/or refusing to conduct independent inquiries into the deaths of the various deceased.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Thursday Volume 501 19 November 2009 No. 2 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday 19 November 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 127 19 NOVEMBER 2009 Business of the House 128 we at business questions are the flint she sparks off, we House of Commons share in her reflected glory. May we assume that she is now a subscriber to that publication? Thursday 19 November 2009 May we have a statement on the prospects for the Bills in the Queen’s Speech? On Monday, the right hon. and learned Lady claimed that the majority of the Bills The House met at half-past Ten o’clock in the Queen’s Speech would become law before the next election. We have an absolute maximum of 70 sitting PRAYERS days before Dissolution, and we need to set aside time for debates on the pre-Budget report, as well as ensuring that we have time to discuss other issues, such as [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] Afghanistan. Given all that, does the right hon. and learned Lady still stand by her original claim, or will Business of the House she admit that there may be difficulties in fulfilling the Government’s commitments? Given the limited time we 10.33 am have left, recess dates have an added significance, so is the right hon.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to the Government for BIA Members
    A guide to the Government for BIA members Correct as of 26 June 2020 This is a briefing for BIA members on the Government led by Boris Johnson and key ministerial appointments for our sector after the December 2019 General Election and February 2020 Cabinet reshuffle. Following the Conservative Party’s compelling victory, the Government now holds a majority of 80 seats in the House of Commons. The life sciences sector is high on the Government’s agenda and Boris Johnson has pledged to make the UK “the leading global hub for life sciences after Brexit”. With its strong majority, the Government has the power to enact the policies supportive of the sector in the Conservatives 2019 Manifesto. All in all, this indicates a positive outlook for life sciences during this Government’s tenure. Contents: Ministerial and policy maker positions in the new Government relevant to the life sciences sector .......................................................................................... 2 Ministers and policy maker profiles................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Ministerial and policy maker positions in the new Government relevant to the life sciences sector* *Please note that this guide only covers ministers and responsibilities relevant to the life sciences and will be updated as further roles and responsibilities are announced. Department Position Holder Relevant responsibility Holder in
    [Show full text]
  • Download Clinton Email November Release
    UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05772613 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL CONFIDENTIAL October 9, 2010 For: Hillary From: Sid Re: Yes, some things: 1. Richard Wolff told me that one of the reasons Jones was summarily executed was payback for dumping Mark Lippert (whom he called "Thing Two," from Dr. Seuss' Cat in the Hat), McDonough's sidekick (whom Jones calls "Thing One"). Of course, Jones had to go to Obama himself to dispose of Lippert. The true cause was that Thing One and Thing Two were leaking negative stories about Jones. McDonough, naturally, has assumed Donilon's post. Obladi, oblada, as John Lennon (who would have been 70) might say. 2. Shaun Woodward is in the Labour shadow cabinet in his former position as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Gordon Brown's hatchetman, Charlie Whelan, whose job was to undercut Tony, had worked the unions to vote for Ed Miliband rather than Ed Balls (the one closest to Gordon) in order to beat David--the last scene in the revenge tragedy of Gordon v. Tony. Only 19 percent of the union people voted, but were credited with the full one-third of Labour votes for leader selection, so a minority of a minority threw the election by 1.3 percent to Ed. Then Balls, his wife Yvette Cooper (an MP and former cabinet secretary), and other Brownites ran as a slate for shadow cabinet--the first time the shadow cabinet was to be elected by the constituency. That succeeded to electing them all and shutting out Peter Hain, the former deputy PM, as well as Shaun.
    [Show full text]
  • Yougov / the Sunday Times Survey Results
    YouGov / The Sunday Times Survey Results Sample Size: 1011 Labour Party Members Fieldwork: 7th - 9th September 2010 1st Preference - September 2010 1st Preference - July 2010 September Choice July Choice Gender Age Diane Andy David Ed Diane Andy David Ed David Ed David Ed Total Ed Balls Ed Balls Male Female 18-34 35-54 55+ Abbott Burnham Miliband Miliband Abbott Burnham Miliband Miliband Miliband Miliband Miliband Miliband Weighted Sample 1008 106 86 91 354 287 99 45 65 244 209 431 474 320 340 577 432 331 303 374 Unweighted Sample 1011 102 89 97 344 296 93 45 69 239 221 429 485 310 353 654 357 307 317 387 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 1st Preference - September 2010 [Excluding Don't know and Wouldn't Vote] David Miliband 38 0001000824 9 79 16 83 0 68 11 36 42 41 39 35 Ed Miliband 31 00001001114 13 11 69 1 62 11 50 31 31 33 28 33 Diane Abbott 11 1000000702 3144164181112131111 Andy Burnham 10 001000029 66 4 6 7 10 10 10 12 7 8 10 11 Ed Balls 9 0100000852 10 5 6 5 12 7 11 10 8 5 13 10 Weighted Sample 846 92 82 84 320 268 84 41 55 214 186 384 427 279 296 493 353 280 258 308 Unweighted Sample 849 90 85 89 308 277 80 41 58 207 199 380 438 268 309 555 294 260 266 323 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 2nd Preference - September 2010 [Excluding Don't know and Wouldn't Vote] Ed Miliband 30 53 48 34 43 0 42 32 25 33 22 35 27 30 29 29 32 32 33 26 Ed Balls 22 200 2825251936 26 23 21 23 21 24 22 23 21 20 23 23 Andy Burnham 19 14 17 0 21 24 14 18 19 21 18 19 19 19 18 18 20 21 20 16 David Miliband 17 13 20 30 0 35 13 12 24 10 27 13 21 16 20 17 17 15 12 23 Diane Abbott 11 0 15 8 11 16 11 2 7 12 12 9 12 11 11 12 10 12 11 12 Weighted Sample 905 90 74 75 351 285 82 40 56 233 203 431 474 299 319 519 387 303 267 336 Unweighted Sample 914 87 78 84 341 293 79 40 60 228 214 429 485 290 334 592 322 283 280 351 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Miliband preference - September [Excluding definitely wouldn't vote] David Miliband 48 19 28 41 100 1 25 34 37 86 17 100 0 80 17 47 49 48 46 48 Ed Miliband 52 81 72 59 0 99 75 66 63 14 83 0 100 20 83 53 51 52 54 52 1 © 2010 YouGov plc.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Note: Former Special Advisers in Cabinet, 1979-2013
    Research Note: Former Special Advisers in Cabinet, 1979-2013 Executive Summary Sixteen special advisers have gone on to become Cabinet Ministers. This means that of the 492 special advisers listed in the Constitution Unit database in the period 1979-2010, only 3% entered Cabinet. Seven Conservative party Cabinet members were formerly special advisers. o Four Conservative special advisers went on to become Cabinet Ministers in the 1979-1997 period of Conservative governments. o Three former Conservative special advisers currently sit in the Coalition Cabinet: David Cameron, George Osborne and Jonathan Hill. Eight Labour Cabinet members between 1997-2010 were former special advisers. o Five of the eight former special advisers brought into the Labour Cabinet between 1997-2010 had been special advisers to Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. o Jack Straw entered Cabinet in 1997 having been a special adviser before 1979. One Liberal Democrat Cabinet member, Vince Cable, was previously a special adviser to a Labour minister. The Coalition Cabinet of January 2013 currently has four members who were once special advisers. o Also attending Cabinet meetings is another former special adviser: Oliver Letwin as Minister of State for Policy. There are traditionally 21 or 22 Ministers who sit in Cabinet. Unsurprisingly, the number and proportion of Cabinet Ministers who were previously special advisers generally increases the longer governments go on. The number of Cabinet Ministers who were formerly special advisers was greatest at the end of the Labour administration (1997-2010) when seven of the Cabinet Ministers were former special advisers. The proportion of Cabinet made up of former special advisers was greatest in Gordon Brown’s Cabinet when almost one-third (30.5%) of the Cabinet were former special advisers.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 494 24 June 2009 No. 98 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 24 June 2009 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2009 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; Tel: 0044 (0) 208876344; e-mail: [email protected] 777 24 JUNE 2009 778 rightly made the case. I hope she will understand when I House of Commons point her to the work of the World Bank and other international financial institutions on infrastructure in Wednesday 24 June 2009 Ukraine and other countries. We will continue to watch the regional economic needs of Ukraine through our involvement with those institutions. The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon) (Con): Given PRAYERS the strategic significance of Ukraine as a political buffer zone between the EU and Russia, does the Minister not think that it was perhaps an error of judgment to close [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] the DFID programme in Ukraine last year? It would be an utter tragedy if Ukraine’s democracy should fail, so BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS should we not at the very least be running significant capacity-building programmes to support it? SPOLIATION ADVISORY PANEL Resolved, Mr. Thomas: We are running capacity-building programmes on democracy and good governance through That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Insideout in Defence of Special Advisers: Lessons from Personal Experience
    In Defence of Special Advisers: Lessons from Personal Experience Nick Hillman INSIDE InsideOUT A series of personal perspectives on government eectiveness 9 This essay is dedicated to my children, Ben and Amity, who were born while I was a special adviser. I promise to repay the bedtime stories I missed. 2 InsideOUT InsideOUT In Defence of Special Advisers: Lessons from Personal Experience Nick Hillman InsideOUT 3 TRANSFORMATION IN THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE 2010 interim evaluation report Foreword Nick Hillman’s InsideOUT provides the most valuable recent insight into the work of that most misunderstood Whitehall species – the special adviser. The value lies, first, in being up-to-date when much of the discussion of special advisers goes back to the scandals and battles of the Blair/Brown years; and, second, in being written from the perspective of a department rather than the centre. That is crucial in understanding how advisers operate, particularly in the age of coalition, and how they contribute to the work of their ministers, as opposed to the Prime Minister. You would expect that someone who worked for David Willetts to operate in a less highly charged world than in some of the familiar stab-and-tell accounts of ex-advisers. That is an advantage and allows Hillman to concentrate on the key issues, not just, persuasively, in defence of spads but also in suggesting how the system can be improved. Without repeating all his arguments, I would like to discuss one issue which he highlights – the lack of proper preparation and training. Working in Parliament as chief of staff to a member of the Shadow Cabinet, as Hillman did, can, as he says, feel more like a micro-business than part of a great ship of state.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release
    20 May 2009 TOM WATSON MP Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail, apologised today to Tom Watson MP in a Statement in Open Court Solicitors read before Mr Justice Eady. International Press Centre 76 Shoe Lane London EC4A 3JB Mr Watson complained of an article by Iain Dale, headed “Smears, glowering Tel 020 7353 5005 henchmen-like the Nixon White House” published in the Mail on Sunday on 12 Fax 020 7353 5553 April 2009 in which it was stated not only that Mr Watson was copied into emails DX 333 Chancery Lane sent by Downing Street press adviser Damian McBride to Derek Draper, but that Email [email protected] he “encouraged” them. The emails were reported to have made serious and Web site www.carter-ruck.com false allegations about the private lives of a number of Conservative Party MPs in the course of discussing proposals for a new website to be known as “Red Rag”. As the Court heard today, Associated Newspapers Limited now accepts that these allegations are entirely untrue. In fact, Mr Watson was not copied into any of the emails exchanged between Mr McBride and Mr Draper. As Mr Watson has already publicly made clear, he had no involvement in or knowledge of the “Red PRESS RELEASE Rag” website and he did not condone the content of the emails and, indeed, regarded them as completely inappropriate. Associated Newspapers Limited has unreservedly withdrawn the allegations, apologised to Mr Watson for the distress the article caused him and his family and has joined in the reading of the Statement in Open Court today.
    [Show full text]