Richard Heller: Time for Cameron’s spin doctors to clean up their act

But after just a few months in office, he was asked by the head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O’Donnell, to bring his government’s spin doctors under control.

The journal, PR Week, has just published a letter from Sir Gus to Cameron last September. It condemns certain special advisers for anonymous briefings against a senior civil servant, Jenny Watson, who heads the Electoral Commission.

“This behaviour is unacceptable. I trust you will agree with me and take necessary action to make sure that people understand this will not be tolerated.”

Commenting on Sir Gus’s letter, Cameron’s new official spokesman, Craig Oliver, said “clear rules are in place and we expect people to abide by them”.

Permit me a small, mirthless laugh. Clear rules are not in place. Special advisers are a dark corner of the British system of government. They are creatures of ministerial patronage: their duties and responsibilities are opaque, their accountability almost non-existent. They have a code of conduct but it is virtually unenforceable. The only clear rule for any of them is not to get caught.

The present government appointed 68 of them, about the same as Gordon Brown. Several appointees have already embarrassed the Government, and it is less than a year old. Even if the remainder turn out to be total goody two-shoes, are they really necessary?

Special advisers were once known as political advisers, reflecting a Yes, Minister world in which hapless Ministers like Jim Hacker needed independent political advice to counter the low cunning and institutional power of civil servants like Sir Humphrey Appleby.

This rationale does not apply today, when Yes, Minister has no note of irony and senior officials are only too willing to advance any government’s agenda, however daft.

If Ministers do still need political or personal advisers, why pay them from public funds? They have an exciting job, and many talented people would do it for expenses only.

If they are to receive taxpayer salaries, they should sit a competitive examination. Candidates would be tested on their knowledge of the Department which they intend to advise and would write an essay setting out their approach to its current problems. Such a test would weed out cranks and dimwits, and if it were extended to new Ministers – so much the better.

Once they pass their exams, some other new rules would make special advisers more productive and more accountable and deal effectively with wrongdoing.

First, they should answer questions regularly from Parliamentary Select Committees.

Second, they should write regularly for publication and give on-the-record interviews.

Third, they should not be allowed to seek a Parliamentary candidacy during their term of office. The minute that happens, any advice they offer is likely to be influenced by their perception of how it will play in their chosen constituency.

Fourth, they should be barred outright from lobbying when they leave office, or joining any company which has done business with their Department.

This rule should be extended to Ministers and senior officials. People who have been paid in government by the taxpayer should not be allowed to sell their knowledge of government to any special interest.

However, the greatest single reform would be to make Ministers directly, personally – and legally – liable for everything said, done and written by their personal appointees.

As of now, this does not happen. Instead, special advisers are classed as temporary civil servants – even though they are hired expressly to do politically partisan work which civil servants are not allowed to do.

To use a legal term, special advisers should be treated as “emanations” of the Ministers who chose them.

If a special adviser sends a foolish email about burying bad news or peddling scandal about political opponents, or issues a threat or a poisonous briefing against someone, or is shown to be a liar or a clot – the Minister takes responsibility, and, if necessary, defends the court case.

All these reforms, especially the last, would improve the conduct and the performance of special advisers. They may possibly dry up the supply.

In that case, Ministers may take a little more advice from elected MPs.