In its Third Special Report on 10 January, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee published the Government’s response to the Committee’s Tenth Report of Session 2016-17 on ‘Lessons still to be learned from the Chilcot Inquiry.’
The Committee’s introduction to the response states that: “The Committee is disappointed with the Government’s response given the clear evidence of the need for improvements to public inquiries and Government decision making that the Committee received. It is particularly concerned about the Government’s failure to accept the case for stronger safeguards to ensure proper collective consideration by the Cabinet on decisions of national importance.”

We share this disappointment and have a related major concern about the stated basis for the government’s response to one of the Select Committee’s key recommendations. In its own report the Committee drew on a proposal from the Better Government Initiative for additional safeguards in the collective decision making process. In its response the Government completely misrepresents the BGI’s proposal as being in the Government’s words “for a formal Ministerial direction to be given, if Ministers decided to go ahead with a policy against the advice of officials”. Having set up this misrepresentation it goes on to reject its own proposal.

The BGI had not suggested that a direction be sought if ministers decided to go ahead with a policy against the advice of officials, nor would we advocate such an approach. Our proposal clearly related to instances of a total failure to conduct the process of government properly. It had been prompted by the detailed description of inadequacies in the decision-making process in the case of the run up to and aftermath of the Iraq war set out in the Chilcot report. We agree that processes have improved since the establishment of the National Security Council but these arrangements are not binding on future governments. Safeguards are needed against a future breakdown of proper process. This risk of inadequate process relates not just to the national security area.

The Cabinet Manual sets out the processes to be followed to ensure that ministers reach an informed decision. If Ministers choose not to follow these processes on major issues of public policy, we believe they should explicitly and transparently amend the Cabinet Manual or, if they simply ignore its process requirements in a particular case, then it would be appropriate for officials to seek a written direction before implementing a decision reached without regard to the government’s own procedural requirements. This would be a direction about the process for reaching a decision not about Ministers not following the policy advice of officials.

We resent the misrepresentation of our recommendation, which we find disturbing in a response focused in part on how, in the light of the Chilcot report, government has strengthened its analytical processes. We might reasonably have expected the government would describe and analyse our proposal accurately before reaching a view on it.

The extracts at Annex from the PACAC report and the government’s response show the false basis on which our proposal has been rejected.

ANNEX

1. In its tenth report PACAC said:
54.The BGI has suggested clarifying the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary, and possibly of other top officials, for ensuring that government is conducted according to accepted procedures and principles. The BGI proposes a mechanism of written Ministerial direction, similar to that used by Departmental Accounting Officers. The BGI explains the proposal:
If the Prime Minister or the government wish to conduct business in another way they can transparently amend the published Cabinet Manual and address the case for change in Parliament. If, however, officials are asked in effect to ignore established procedure for good government, they would be expected to seek a direction which would be reported to Parliament – perhaps as for other directions to the PAC [Public Accounts Committee] and the Comptroller and Auditor General, but in addition to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
PACAC recommends that the substance of the proposal of the Better Government Initiative should be adopted. There should be a mechanism of written Ministerial direction, similar to that used by Departmental Accounting Officers, reflecting the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary and other senior officials to ensure that proper procedure is followed as set out in the Cabinet Manual.

2. Government Response paragraph 7:
Policy Making
7.PACAC recommends that the substance of the proposal of the Better Government Initiative should be adopted. There should be a mechanism of written Ministerial direction, similar to that used by Departmental Accounting Officers, reflecting the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary and other senior officials to ensure that proper procedure is followed as set out in the Cabinet Manual. If …..(Paragraph 57)
Response: As part of the then National Security Adviser’s lessons learning process the Government considered the Better Government Initiative’s idea for a formal Ministerial direction to be given, if Ministers decided to go ahead with a policy against the advice of officials. {The response then goes on to address the government’s version of the BGI’s proposal}