# The Role of the Civil Service in Cabinet Government.



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2016)

David Cameron has released his fellow ministers to campaign against his preferred Brexit policy while remaining as ministers in his government.  Those ministers are still held accountable for their actions in parliament during question period.

Concurrently his senior civil servant (in Canada the equivalent, I believe is recently appointed Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary of the Cabinet), has advised departmental bureaucrats that they may not share data with Eurosceptic ministers, or work against government policy, even when it means working against their own minister who is responsible for their work.

All of this leaves me scratching my head.  And probably a few others.

I think the situation is further complicated if I throw in the notion of the Prime Minister not being supreme in Cabinet but only Primus Inter Pares.

Cabinet is a subset of the Privy Council which actually reports to and is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the PM. I believe the Privy Council in general and the Cabinet in particular can revolt and toss the PM as has happened to a number of sitting PMs in the UK.  Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.  Once appointed they, ministers, are no longer subject to the PM's discipline except as they allow the discipline to be applied for party purposes (ie getting re-nominated, re-elected) and the PM has the support of the majority of the rest of Cabinet.

Does this mean that if the PM were to fire half his Cabinet he runs the risk of in turn being fired?  

And what does it mean for the credibility of the Civil Service if they are told to ignore their ministers?

This is a Brit problem but given our identical system it appears to me that the questions would be the same here.

ERC.  Are you there?  





> *Jeremy Heywood to face questions over ban on data for Eurosceptic ministers*
> 
> 
> Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service, ordered civil servants to deny ministers who want to campaign to leave the EU access to government statistics and research
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12176293/Jeremy-Heywood-to-face-questions-over-ban-on-data-for-Eurosceptic-ministers.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2016)

I await ERC's sage words, but on this one ...


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... And what does it mean for the credibility of the Civil Service if they are told to ignore their ministers? ...


... one might not be considered working _against_ the Minister but _for_ the DM - my understanding is that the bureaucrats "work for/report to" the DM as opposed to "working for/reporting to" the Minister.  

Mind you, since the Minister _and_ the DM both have that line back to the PM's box, it would be interesting to see how this would work in practice.  Ministers campaigning against the PM's stance might be considered in the same situation as when they're doing party political work?

Good questions - I await more education.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I await ERC's sage words, but on this one ...... one might not be considered working _against_ the Minister but _for_ the DM - my understanding is that the bureaucrats "work for/report to" the DM as opposed to "working for/reporting to" the Minister.
> 
> Mind you, since the Minister _and_ the DM both have that line back to the PM's box, it would be interesting to see how this would work in practice.  Ministers campaigning against the PM's stance might be considered in the same situation as when they're doing party political work?
> 
> Good questions - I await more education.



Did not members of the Department of Foreign Affairs get exposed in the Hillary Clinton Tapes as going against direction from the Minister well prior to the Oct 2016 election?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I await ERC's sage words, but on this one ...... one might not be considered working _against_ the Minister but _for_ the DM - my understanding is that the bureaucrats "work for/report to" the DM as opposed to "working for/reporting to" the Minister.
> 
> Mind you, since the Minister _and_ the DM both have that line back to the PM's box, it would be interesting to see how this would work in practice.  Ministers campaigning against the PM's stance might be considered in the same situation as when they're doing party political work?
> 
> Good questions - I await more education.



But it isn't the DM that is answerable for the department or the budget. That falls to the minister.

I was under the impression that the DM was not the CO, but rather an RSM.  Like the CO the Minister holds the commission.  Not the DM.  The Minister therefore is answerable.

Or putting it another way - the DM is the Sigs Officer in an Infantry Battalion.  His promotion may not depend on the CO but the CO can fire him from the position and demand a replacement.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Feb 2016)

Except that in our practice the minister cannot fire the DM. I am really torn here, but I suspect that the PM and the Secretary have agreed on this. This is one of the things that just don't work in the Westminster political/public service interface and certainly the Barons forget to address it at Runnymede.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Or putting it another way - the DM is the Sigs Officer in an Infantry Battalion.  His promotion may not depend on the CO but the CO can fire him from the position and demand a replacement.


Using your analogy, the DM would be an RSM appointed by (and is also responsible to) the Brigade commander, even if s/he works for the CO.  This, from a PCO publication for DM's:


> ... The Prime Minister is responsible for the unity and direction of the Ministry and the government's policies. Thus, while _Responsibility in the Constitution_ notes that a Deputy Minister's “supreme loyalty” is to the Minister, Deputy Ministers in the Government of Canada are also accountable to the Prime Minister, through the Clerk, to support the Minister in a way that is consistent with the agenda and direction of the government as whole. In this way, Deputy Ministers contribute to the unity of the government they serve ...


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2016)

But if the Prime Minister loses the confidence of his Cabinet?  Whose government is it?

And there were no civil servants at Runnymede... thank gawd.  Scribes galore perhaps, but no civil service.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But it isn't the DM that is answerable for the department or the budget. That falls to the minister.
> 
> I was under the impression that the DM was not the CO, but rather an RSM.  Like the CO the Minister holds the commission.  Not the DM.  The Minister therefore is answerable.
> 
> Or putting it another way - the DM is the Sigs Officer in an Infantry Battalion.  His promotion may not depend on the CO but the CO can fire him from the position and demand a replacement.



This analogy is not particularly accurate where the DM is concerned...perhaps describing someone with at least three bosses would be more accurate.  The Deputy Head (as the DM is usually referred to in Government Policies) has a tri-fold chain of responsibility to: Minister (direct); PM (through the Clerk of the Privy Council); and the Treasury Board (through the Secretary).

By way of example (using one of the numerous TB policies), the Policy on the Management of Executives directs that: 



> *3.2* The deputy head is accountable to his or her minister, to the Prime Minister through the Clerk of the Privy Council, and to the Treasury Board, for the management of executives in accordance with this policy and within the spirit and intent of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service.



A visit to the Treasury Board website on Policies, Directives, Standards and Guidelines (literally hundreds of them) will give lots of opportunity to see just how many responsibilities the DM holds, to a number of masters.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace (28 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But if the Prime Minister loses the confidence of his Cabinet?  Whose government is it?
> 
> And there were no civil servants at Runnymede... thank gawd.  Scribes galore perhaps, but no civil service.



Well....In a way, the Scribes were the civil service of the day........and no one at the time
 was able to read what they scribed, so an ATI request may turn up inconsistencies in what we thought transpired...... >  

  [


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2016)

:goodpost:


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> This analogy is not particularly accurate where the DM is concerned...perhaps describing someone with at least three bosses would be more accurate.  The Deputy Head (as the DM is usually referred to in Government Policies) has a tri-fold chain of responsibility to: Minister (direct); PM (through the Clerk of the Privy Council); and the Treasury Board (through the Secretary).
> 
> By way of example (using one of the numerous TB policies), the Policy on the Management of Executives directs that:
> 
> ...



Point taken but:

The Minister and the Deputy Minister have irreconcilable differences.  Wouldn't the Minister go to the PM and request a replacement?  Would the Clerk of the the Privy Council, recently appointed by the PM to replace another recently appointed impartial Clerk of the Privy Counci, not take direction from the PM or would he the Clerk decide that he needed his man in that department regardless of the wishes of the PM and his Minister?  

With respect to the PM is he likely to over-ride the wishes of his Minister to keep his impartial sycophant in place and risk the wrath of a rebellious Cabinet?

Of course, in Canada, there is the issue of extra-parliamentary Party constitutions that give the PM (or rather the Party) the upper hand in Cabinet.

Short form: an unholy mess?


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Feb 2016)

Depends.  

If the Minister is experienced, and the DM a seasoned deputy, odds are they will reconcile their differences before the PM and Clerk have to get together and have a sit down.

The less experienced in a 'battle' will usually lose the fight, and most DMs have been around for a healthy amount of 'time served', particularly those of one of the central agencies or senior departments.

"...risk the wrath of a rebellious cabinet?"  

Your forgot to query the alternative: "Risk alienating the group of senior mandarins who play a critical role in making Government work (or not)?"

I would think that any PM worth their salt would take heed in the Clerk's advice, and not immediately default to flowing through any particular Minister's plaintive demands to replace a DM with whom they do not see eye to eye.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ....
> Your forgot to query the alternative: "Risk alienating the group of senior mandarins who play a critical role in making Government work (or not)?"
> 
> .....



Equally valid.

 But the Civil Service is, as we are constantly reminded, impartial.  They wouldn't actively work against their elected masters.  Stephen Harper was surely mistaken.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2016)

I don't see this as a HUGE problem.

First: I _think_ G2G is correct in the relationships of a Deputy to the rest of government.

The primary role of the minister is to provide that essential (to the Westminster system) _*accountability*_ in parliament. (It is something that successive Canadian prime ministers starting with Pierre Trudeau, although he certainly wasn't the worst, have weakened.) We, the citizens, cannot hold the civil service to account ~ only the executive, using the PCO and the Treasury Board, can do that (and the PM holds the power over both). Ministers, like the PM and any MP, are *independent* political actors who have chosen to accept their party's whip and my reject it at any time.

     (Chris: it isn't just the cabinet that can toss out the PM; they (whoever wants to toss out the PM) need most of the caucus to do it. The government is the government *only* because it can persuade the sovereign
      (the GG in our case) that it has the _confidence_ of the House of Commons; the PM is the PM *only* because (s)he has the confidence of the government caucus. See e.g. Australia who do this fairly often and, _in my opinion_, correctly.)

All that to say that ministers _*may*_ have _political_ (not, ever, _*policy*_) positions that differ from the government's on specific issues ... if their colleagues, including, especially, the PM, allow that then they may hold, even display divergent opinions and stay in cabinet. In that case it is right and proper for the Secretary (the Clerk in Canada)* to tell the Deputy Heads that they must exclude their ministers from discussions about that specific issue, _*Brexit*_ in this case. The cabinet has decided that this is one of those (rare) cases where cabinet solidarity is not required; the issue is _sui generis_ and political: the referendum was an election promise; the outcome was not; good Tories may disagree on this and still be good Tories. Most ministers will have, at best, only peripheral responsibilities to this, but see this _Brexit_ "to do" list compiled by the _Financial Times_; my guess is that most of those items will need action only after an "Out!" vote and, I am almost certain, cabinet will need to be shuffled if that happens.

The _constitution_ (the unwritten part)_ seems, to me_, quite clear on the roles and rights of the civil service: it is a tool of the executive (the sovereign/GG) and enjoys all the rights and priviliges of that status. Prime Minister Harper, in an effort to shield ministers from their proper accountability and to ape the Americans, as Canadian popular opinion too often demands, tried to make Deputy Heads "accountable' to parliamentary committees. That was very bad policy and weak politics, too. _I think_ that what David Cameron is doing is both _constitutionally_ correct policy and good politics.

My  :2c:

_____
* This goes all the way back to the Cecils, _pèr e et fils_, William, Lord Burghley, and his son Robert, the Earl of Salisbury, who were styled by their sovereign (Elizabeth I), at their requests, as Secretary to the Council and Clerk of the Council respectively)


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Feb 2016)

Thanks, ER!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Feb 2016)

Basically, the DM's are responsible to their Minister for the administration of their department and to the  Clerk of the Privy council (usually in its reduced form consisting in the Cabinet only) for the implementation of government policy. The Privy council sets the policy and the Ministers are responsible to the PM for the statement of policy originating from their department (on which, while being developed, the DM advises the Minister).

On the political side of things, whenever the Minister is involved in political activities, the DM and the department are to stay right out of it, and it is solely the purview of the political advisors to the Minister to act. This makes the current situation in the UK correct: the Ministers have been freed politically to take the position they wish, while the Civil Service can only work on behalf of the official policy of the government. On the other hand, while the Ministers who wish to campaign on a position adverse  to the government policy cannot breach their oath to secrecy of the Cabinet deliberations or other government confidential dealings, for whatever is not confidential and they know exists, they can always make an access to information request through their political staffers.

At least that's the theory.

Here is how the responsibility lines operate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... that's the theory.
> 
> Here is how the responsibility lines operate:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIto5mwDLxo




Exactly right, OGBD. Too many people forget that "Yes, Minister" was a documentary, not a sitcom.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Feb 2016)

Under the Liberal and early on under the CPC we used to deal directly with M.O. requests, then it all shifted to flowing through the D.M.'s and remains that way for day to day stuff.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Feb 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Under the Liberal and early on under the CPC we used to deal directly with M.O. requests, then it all shifted to flowing through the D.M.'s and remains that way for day to day stuff.


Same for us - I took a LOT of calls from MO for a mere PM-04 (albeit in Comms, but still ...) in a regional office coming in from off the street.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Feb 2016)

OK, some further thoughts.

I get that there are rules but regardless of rules people are people.  And anybody that is reporting to three masters has no masters.  They have three clients, one of whom is their paymaster.  And then the politics (office level) start.

With respect to "You can campaign for Brexit on your own time but you're working for me!"  I get that too.

Having said that,

As our recently elected young PM keeps alluding to - information gathered for public purposes should serve the public and not the party.  If information is being withheld because it suits the cause, or if push polls are being generated for like reason the I perceive a problem.

And if the minister is aware of the problem......  ???

PS MO ?  Minister's Office?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2016)

Another opinion:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12178285/The-Civil-Service-shouldnt-be-on-Remains-side.html



> The Civil Service shouldn’t be on Remain’s side
> Voters need impartial information – Whitehall must serve them, not one man’s political agenda
> 
> ....
> ...



Kate Hoey is the Labour MP for Vauxhall and a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (and, apparently a Minister in Tony Blair's cabinet).

Given the source, and for a variety of reasons, the assertion is debatable - but that is what we are doing here.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Mar 2016)

Further to the debate:



> *Euorsceptic ministers may have to use a freedom of information requests or a parliamentary questions to obtain EU-related documents produced by their own staff*, a top civil servant has said.
> 
> Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain's most senior civil servant, has been accused of stifling debate among eurosceptic ministers by issuing new guidance banning ministers from accessing official documents and receiving briefings ahead of the referendum.
> 
> ...



Contrary view from the same article



> ...the eurosceptic *Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has told his staff to defy the Government and grant him access to European Union documents.*
> 
> But Mr Duncan-Smith has apparently told an ally: *"My civil servants don't work for Jeremy Heywood, they work for me.
> “It's me who has the seals of state, not him. *I have told them that all European Union documents must pass across my desk. I trust my staff, and they will not withhold information from me.”



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12178968/Eurosceptic-ministers-may-have-to-use-freedom-of-information-requests-to-obtain-EU-related-documents-produced-by-their-own-staff-latest.html

It is worth noting that David Cameron would probably love to fire IDS, and Gove and Villiers et al but he can't, not without putting his government at risk.  IDS in particular has a strong following in the party, particularly amongst the "Grassroots", defined by the constituency associations.  The same associations who he feels have forced his hand to calling the referendum, who he has instructed his ministers and MPs to ignore and who he now wants to organize out of existence.....



> *Secret plan to axe 90 per cent of Tory associations *which would smooth George Osborne's coronation as leader
> Critics believe that it is a bid to reduce the influence of Tory associations - which are typically Eurosceptic - on the party’s next leadership contest



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12178192/Secret-plan-to-axe-90-per-cent-of-Tory-associations-which-would-smooth-George-Osbornes-coronation-as-leader.html

A motion that is backed by the likes of this



> *David Cameron needs to crush his party members* – or risk Labour's fate
> The election of Jeremy Corbyn shows you can't trust your grassroots. Reforming Conservative associations is long overdue



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/12179382/David-Cameron-needs-to-crush-his-party-members-or-risk-Labours-fate.html

And people wonder at the rise of the likes of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and all the other "populists" out there.

And here in Canada we have the "populist" left versus the "populist" right versus the "elitist" centre. Some party overlap may occur.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Mar 2016)

I think this may come as a shock to Mr. Duncan Smith, but he may soon discover that his permanent secretary will inform him, in the infamous words of Sir Humphrey, that "You do not run this Department, I do!", and that the civil servants in "his" department are not "his" civil servants but  members of THE loyal civil service of Her Majesty, which is "de facto" jointly headed by the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretary to the Treasury.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2016)

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/trudeau-makes-first-shakeup-of-top-ps-ranks



> Trudeau makes first shakeup of top PS ranks



http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2016/03/02/wave-of-public-servants-becoming-political-staffers/48311



> Wave of public servants becoming political staffers
> 
> 'It absolutely feeds into the perception that the civil service favours the Liberals.'



I'm reminded of the old party dance:

You put your left foot in.
You put your left foot out.
You put your left foot in
And you shake it all about.

You do the Hokey Kokey and you turn yourself around.

Thanks to David Akin for the heads up on both of these.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2016/03/02/wave-of-public-servants-becoming-political-staffers/48311



These paragraphs hit home not only with the Conservative Party, but myself as well, after watching the partisan politics carried out by the various unions, in particular the Federal Public Service, during the last election; combined with the release of the Hillary Clinton tapes that exposed the attitude held by numerous Department of Foreign Affairs officials:



> Several public servants have shed their neutrality to join the ranks of political staffers working for Liberal ministers.
> 
> These include a handful who’ve recently worked at the foreign ministry, as well as others from federal departments and organizations including the environment ministry, International Development Research Centre, Natural Resources Canada and Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2016)

I wonder how many Upper Canada, Trinity and Lakefield grads do you find amongst their ranks?


----------

