Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 6
6
We questioned the Department about how it decided which bids from other government departments it...
Conclusion
We questioned the Department about how it decided which bids from other government departments it would provide funding for. Special advisers were invited to discuss the initial assessments from the Department’s officials before final advice was given to Ministers.15 Correspondence from the Department showed that in the meeting to discuss bids five special advisers were present alongside officials from the Department, HM Treasury and the Prime Minister’s Office.16 The Department told us that advice was often written by officials which special advisers then commented on, as was appropriate. However, in the interests of working at pace it had brought the two processes together, which the Department recognised was an unusual form.17 We asked whether the Department had, or planned to, publish information that would allow Parliament to tell what influence special advisers had or the advice submitted to Ministers.18 The Department emphasised that while special advisers were involved in discussions and that these discussions informed the advice that went to Ministers, the advice provided to Ministers was from officials who had been comfortable with the proposals that had been put forward.19 We noted that special advisers had a very important and useful role to play in government, but that if the distinction between special advisers and civil servants is blurred “there can be a real danger constitutionally, and it can case real questions”.20 We remarked that the level of influence exerted by special advisers and their involvement at the point of decision making appeared to go beyond anything we had previously witnesses as Members of this Committee or in previous Ministerial roles.21 We were concerned that there had been a lot of senior advisers “making very candid and detailed comments on these [Minister’s] briefings”.22
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 2.2 DCMS agrees that appropriate records of decisions, especially in relation to funding, should always be kept. In this instance, as the DCMS Permanent Secretary confirmed in a letter dated 14 May 2021 to the Committee, she was satisfied that civil servants and special advisers at all times followed the Civil Service Code and Code of Conduct for Special Advisers in the distribution of the COVID-19 Charities Funding and that the decisions on funding were made by ministers in the proper way based on appropriately recorded written submissions from civil servants to junior ministers and the Secretary of State. All such submissions and the responses from ministers are recorded in the DCMS IT system. 2.3 The same letter set out the detailed processes involved confirming the distinction between impartial advice from civil servants and the political advice offered by special advisers. The process was that, while special advisers were present at a meeting where proposed allocations were being discussed, those meetings were chaired by a civil servant at Director General level and that the bids being considered by officials for recommendation to