HL Deb 02 February 2000 vol 609 cc229-31

2.44 p.m.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the estimated total cost of the Government's special advisers in the current financial year as compared to 1996–97 and what changes there have been in their duties and responsibilities.

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

My Lords, the estimated cost of special advisers in the current financial year is £4 million. That compares to £1.8 million in 1996–97. With the exception of up to three posts in the Prime Minister's office, special advisers are appointed for the purposes of providing advice to Ministers. Successive administrations have used special advisers in that way.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. However, can I take it that there has been no overall change in the duties and responsibilities of special advisers? Given that they have unparalleled access to Ministers and, apparently, a "licence to leak" on behalf of Ministers, should there not be some standard as regards their qualifications? At present, most seem to have very little experience outside either academia or Westminster. I understand that the number of special advisers at No. 10 has gone up from eight under the previous administration to 25. Surely such a huge increase with no change in duties and responsibilities must, sadly, imply a lack of confidence on the part of the Prime Minister in the advice of his senior official civil servants—for example, the Secretary of the Cabinet or his Principal Private Secretary.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, it certainly implies no such lack of confidence. There is no basis for such a suggestion. The Neill Committee states in its report that special advisers have a very valuable role to play. The evidence of the First Division Association, the trade union for senior civil servants, said: Members say that a good Special Adviser is well worth having in any department … it is also fair to say that this government has used its special advisers in a much more upfront way. A good Special Adviser is an asset in a department, both to the Minister and the Civil Service". The special adviser helps the Minister. He helps the civil servants in the department as well by providing a useful interface between the two.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, leaving aside the party political points made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as my noble and learned friend has quoted the Neill Committee, do the Government agree with the committee's Recommendations 19 and 20 in its sixth report that in a proposed Civil Service Act a specific limit should be named, and that any increase beyond that limit should be subject to resolutions of both Houses?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, the Government have indicated that they are considering all the recommendations in the Neill Committee report. They are very serious. The report is both weighty and worth while. We need to respond in a considered way rather than piecemeal. There is no suggestion at present that the numbers of special advisers are in any sense swamping the senior Civil Service. The senior Civil Service consists of 3,500 people. Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, has said: I do not think the senior Civil Service of 3.500 people is in any danger of being swamped by 70 special advisers".

Lord Tebbit

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there has been an extraordinarily large increase, not only in numbers but in cost to the taxpayer. Would it not be more reasonable if some of that cost—of what are essentially partisan political activities—was borne by the Labour Party rather than the taxpayer?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, as the evidence of Neill Committee report states, as was suggested by the evidence given to the committee by the First Division Association, and as Sir Richard Wilson suggests, special advisers improve the quality of government. The increase in cost is approximately £2.2 million. That is money well spent.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, has the Minister noted that in his native Edinburgh the First Minister has lost two of his three special advisers in the last two or three months? Do they come under the heading of "good special advisers" when he has managed to lose two out of three? Furthermore, why does the Secretary of State for Scotland still need two special advisers when almost all his responsibilities have been devolved to Edinburgh? Is it in order that he can continue his "tough wars" with the First Minister in Scotland?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, as to special advisers to the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament, I can think of no more inappropriate person than myself to answer, so I shall pass. In regard to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as I have said, special advisers contribute to good government, both in his case and in that of other Ministers.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry

My Lords, I do not deny that "a" special adviser is a good thing. I had one when I was Minister for the Arts, and when I was at the Home Office the Home Secretary had one. Why does the present Home Secretary need four or five? That is the unexplained point, particularly if there is no change in their duties or responsibilities. If I remember the recommendations of the Neill Committee correctly, did not the noble Lord give the very clear hint that in his view the presence of so many special advisers could be a cause of distress and concern to official advisers; that is, civil servants?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, the response of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, which I quoted, indicates that it is not a cause for concern at the moment. As to the numbers, I dealt with that point in answer to my noble friend Lord Barnett. Special advisers contribute to good government and are regarded within the Civil Service as being of value to it. I believe that the numbers are a matter of judgment.