Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 7
7
Given our concerns that this was an unusual process, the Department contended that it was...
Conclusion
Given our concerns that this was an unusual process, the Department contended that it was not different from the normal process by which advice was offered to Ministers. The Department, however, was unable to offer further examples of when such an arrangement has been used.23 Nor was it able to say whether, or give examples of, the recommendations by officials changed after the meeting with the special advisers, repeating that special advisers may provide information that was helpful, but that it did not consider this the same as “influencing or changing the advice, which I am certain did not happen”.24 When asked in what way the information could be helpful if it did not lead to a change in advice, the Department told us that it was often the case that special advisers had a stronger sense of the issues that were being raised with Members of Parliament than officials, which was “significant and important” but reiterated that “it is not influence, but there will 14 GSC0013 Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations’ submission, paras 1.5, 2.2 15 C&AG’s Report, para 1.7 16 Q 35; Correspondence from Sarah Healey, Permanent Secretary, 12 April 2021, page 2 17 Qq 18–20, 31–33 18 Qq 45–49 19 Qq 18, 27, 37, 42, 47–49 20 Q 42 21 Qq 23–25 34–37 22 Q 36 23 Q 25 24 Qq 18–19, 25–27, 50 COVID-19: Government Support for Charities 11 obviously be information discussed that is useful”.25 The National Audit Office found that in addition to all four proposals that officials had rated as highest scoring (Green) being selected for funding, nine out of the 13 bids that officials had assessed in the lowest scoring category (Red) were also selected for funding. This included four of the five lowest scoring applications.26
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