Years ago, IP Draughts was a member of a committee that had been formed by a government agency. The purpose of the committee was to give insights on topical issues within the scope of the committee’s remit.
The agency regularly expressed appreciation of the advice that the committee gave it. There was no fee for attending this committee, whose meetings were usually in London, and no expenses were paid. It was understood that the committee was independent, and not bound to follow government policy. A civil servant took the minutes.
Then, one day, the committee expressed a view that was contrary to government policy, and indicated that it would want to publicise its view. IP Draughts can’t remember what the issue was, which suggests that it wasn’t particularly earth-shattering. The agency’s representative declared that this wasn’t permissible from a committee of this kind, and required the view not to be published. Before it was next due to meet, the committee had been disbanded.
IP Draughts remembers this incident every time he sees mention in the press about government advisers being asked to sign NDAs, or questions being raised as to whether committees advising government are genuinely independent. In the last few days, the UK government has announced that Public Health England, the committee that has advised the government on Covid19, is to be terminated, but whether this is due it being too independent, or not independent enough, is not clear.
He has helped clients to negotiate contracts with government that include what he would call non-embarrassment clauses. He has other, varied experiences of interacting with government and government bodies.
In his experience, which may well be incomplete, the unwritten rules of conduct for civil servants include the following key terms:
- Assume that everyone on an advisory committee is representing an interest group, and so has an axe to grind. (This is reinforced by the way in which people are invited to join committees, even on technical subjects. It is sometimes annoying to encounter this assumption.)
- Focus on the process, and let the politicians take the decisions. Sometimes, the politicians may be content to rely on the advice that comes out of the process. On other occasions, the politicians may take decisions that ignore or override the process. Going through the motions of the process may sometimes disguise the informal nature of a political decision.
- If a minister asks for something, do it, whether or not it fits with the agency’s strategy.
- Whatever you do, don’t allow anything to happen that might embarrass the government.
These rules seem to apply not only to civil servants in government departments, but also to employees of government agencies, however “independent” they are presented as being from central government. If the agency has any kind of reporting line into a government department, or is funded by government, it should be treated as part of government, unless it demonstrates genuine independence.
Another feature of government is that it generally dislikes difficult, technical issues that have no votes attached to them. Much of IP law fits within this category, except perhaps for the limited question of consumers downloading copyright material from the internet. It seems that novel infectious diseases also have some of these features, though when they turn into pandemics they become of great interest to voters.
Politicians are mostly ill-equipped to handle complex issues, which may require technical or managerial skills. Their civil servants may be better, but their training leads them to avoid taking sensitive decisions for which they could be blamed.
What is the solution? It could be to create genuinely independent institutions, like the judiciary. But even there, politicians will try to exercise the levers of power if they are allowed to do so. Witness the efforts of successive Home Secretaries to by-pass court orders or bad-mouth the judiciary, e.g. on politically-sensitive subjects like immigration. It is not just a right-wing Tory phenomenom. David Blunket was pretty strong on this subject as a Labour Home Secretary.
The level of independence of an advisory committee, and its ability to withstand political hostility, are difficult but important issues. Terminating a committee because its views are not politically expedient – whether it is an important committee like Public Health England, or an unimportant one like the one IP Draughts sat on – is a symptom of a disfunctional system.
You must be logged in to post a comment.