The final year of a parliament is always a testing time for the civil service. Not only are there the usual pre-election sensitivities about saying or doing anything which could be seen as partisan, but there’s also uncertainty about the future. Civil servants have become accustomed to one set of ministers; what will their successors be like? Loyally serving current ministers until the election while preparing for a possible change is a tricky balancing act.
There is one advantage this time: thanks to the Fixed-Terms Parliament Act, we know that the next election will be on Thursday 7 May. But in reality this doesn’t add that much certainty, as even in times past officials had a good idea of when the election would be called: parties ahead in the polls would seek re-election after four years (1983, 1987, 2001 and 2005), while those in trouble went for five or just short of it (1992 successfully, 1997 and 2010 unsuccessfully).
Meanwhile, this pre-election period has several unique complexities. First, the existence of the coalition has complicated relationships – both between ministers of the two parties, and with the civil service. And second, there is an even greater degree of uncertainty than usual about the outcome.
In a single party government, ministers can seek policy advice on any issue during the pre-election period, whilst clear guidelines prevent officials from straying into party matters. Things are less simple with a coalition – particularly an asymmetrical one, whose 1:5 ratio of Liberal Democrats to Conservatives has meant that Lib Dems have no or little representation in some departments.
As relations between the two parties have become more tense — at least in public statements, if not in private at the top – there have been clashes over requests for policy advice. A junior minister can only ask for advice in their own area of responsibility, and in a number of cases a secretary of state has resisted a request outside that area. That mainly works against the Lib Dems, and a stream of resulting disputes have occupied the time of the ‘quad’ – the top-level interface between the coalition parties.
The underlying problem is that, while Whitehall has generally adapted well to the coalition, there are no clear guidelines for the end of the Parliament, and the politicians now lack the mutual goodwill required to create them. Consequently, as a recent Institute for Government report – Year 5: Whitehall and the Political Parties in the Final Year of Coalition, by Akash Paun and Robyn Munro – showed, there is a lack of consistency across Whitehall in how officials are working with the two parties. Arrangements are being made on an ad hoc basis, with the risk that the civil service may be put in an awkward position. There can be attractions in ambiguity, but a more formal system is required to ensure equity and safeguard civil servants.
If officials – lacking a clear steer – are overly cautious, there’s the danger that insufficient work is undertaken on the two coalition parties’ post-2015 policy options. It would be preferable to follow the Scottish model of 2007 and give each governing party a separate space, with access to civil service support for policy development (without the other party being informed).
This is distinct from the well-established pattern of civil service contacts with the main Opposition parties — now set to begin after the party conferences in mid-October. These permit Opposition shadows to raise questions about the machinery and organisation of government. Permanent secretaries are officially said to be in ‘listening mode’: asking questions, but not giving policy advice.
As we saw in 1997 and 2010, it’s valuable for civil servants to understand an incoming government’s priorities and to help prepare politicians, many of whom have never held ministerial office, for life on Whitehall. Indeed, the Institute’s Dr Catherine Haddon has argued for explicit recognition of the need to discuss implementation with the Opposition: going through the party’s planned legislation, along with the issues around timing and implementation, could help tackle a frequent source of frustration for both new ministers and their civil servants.
This time round, the outcome is more uncertain than in most recent general elections. With the exception of 1970, February 1974 and 1992, the results of general elections have been predictable for half a century; at this stage, no one can be confident about May 2015. That heightens the stakes.
The existence of a coalition, and the absence of clear rules around supporting coalition parties’ policy planning, mean that civil servants are likely to be vulnerable in the months ahead. In the run-up to more predictable elections, the civil service has sometimes been accused of risking its impartiality. This time there will be even greater effort to avoid such criticism.
Peter Riddell is director of the Institute for Government