Ministers want civil servants to have a better understanding of parliament and what it’s trying to achieve. That is one clear message emerging from research into the way select committees interact with government undertaken at the Institute for Government.
The former ministers that we interviewed argued that civil servants saw parliament as an “irritating sideshow that took ministers away from what they were really there to do”. One told us: “I think the understanding of parliament and its purposes is one of the weakest parts of the civil service generally”; most civil servants, they said, just don’t understand the significance which ministers ascribe to their accountability relationship with parliament.
It’s understandable that many civil servants – apart from those who have worked on a bill team in parliamentary branch – lack a detailed understanding of parliamentary procedure and practice. But that wasn’t what these former ministers were advocating: they wanted a far more widespread appreciation of the constitutional role of parliament and its importance to ministers.
Related articles
Select committees must sharpen their focus, says the Institute for Government
Full Matt Hancock speech on civil service reform
PAC to the future? Labour MPs Gisela Stuart, Helen Goodman & Meg Hillier on the race to be the next Margaret Hodge
Sky is the Limit: Efficiency in the Cloud
Our research found that some departments have a deeply defensive attitude towards parliament. Again, in some ways this is understandable: watching colleagues being savaged by committees is hardly the encouragement civil servants need to engage constructively with parliamentarians. There are issues there for parliament itself to examine. And certain ministers don’t encourage a culture of engagement with parliament. But during our interviews it became increasingly obvious that many departments are missing a trick in not establishing a more constructive working relationship with the Palace of Westminster.
For the canny civil servant – and their minister – parliament presents opportunities as well as threats. A committee inquiry or urgent question can be useful mechanisms to encourage a minister to pay attention to a neglected policy area or get on top of their brief on a complex issue. Pre-legislative scrutiny can be a valuable means of highlighting contentious issues at an early stage, so as to resolve them before a bill is introduced. As the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards demonstrated, parliament can sometimes provide a quicker, cheaper alternative to a full public inquiry. And in instances where there is no governmental consensus about the best way forward on a really contentious issue, a committee inquiry can provide a cross-party view.
To make the most of these opportunities, civil servants need to have the right attitude towards parliament. And that attitude needs to be reflected not only in individual interactions, but also in a department’s overall approach.
The sort of engagement with parliament which is most discussed (and feared) amongst civil servants is probably the oral evidence session. Many experienced witnesses told us that it was tempting to take a cautious approach, and certainly to avoid “taking a thought for a walk” if they didn’t know where it might end up. But MPs often interpret caution as stonewalling: an attempt to prevent them carrying out their democratic function.
Instead, their advice was to engage with the process, talking to committee staff ahead of a session to better understand the committee’s interests. Some told us they would always ensure they had something to offer the committee: a minister might make a minor policy announcement, or a civil servant might bring news of progress in an area where the committee had previously expressed concerns. The important thing was to demonstrate an understanding of the legitimate role of the committee and treat them as a “player” within the policy landscape – one with reasonable concerns and a contribution to make.
Sometimes this may feel difficult – particularly when parliamentarians seem to be pursuing their own agenda, without a level of knowledge that is deserving of respect. But it is usually prudent. As the last government discovered in 2013 during the highly contentious debate over opt-outs from EU justice and home affairs provisions – parliamentary committees (in that case European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice) respond badly when they perceive they are being treated with contempt.
A more constructive working relationship with parliament won’t be built simply by individual interactions; departments should be thinking about developing comprehensive parliamentary handling strategies. These should not be limited to targets for handling PQs and responding to committee reports on time, but also include strategies for active engagement with MPs and parliamentary staff to build mutual understanding of parliamentary and departmental priorities.
Committee handling should be an important part of such a strategy. Committees have a number of different sources of influence at their disposal – from their formal powers to summon witnesses, to the expertise they can build and the relationships they can establish. If civil servants want to avoid painful interactions with committees, it is in their interests to encourage committees to develop their softer sources of influence. Again, that means treating them with respect – briefing them in advance where possible, helping them develop policy expertise, and working to support effective relationships with ministers.
For some departments, adopting a more constructive, strategic approach to engaging with parliament would represent a major shift. But now that the government will have to secure its programme with a narrow parliamentary majority, paying greater attention to parliament might well be an investment worth making.