Boris Johnson’s reforms to the role of special advisers are disempowering ministers, a think tank has warned, in a report that also calls for scrutiny of extra power handed to the prime minister’s top spad, Dominic Cummings.
While giving No.10 greater control over ministers’ political advisers has helped the government to focus on the PM’s priorities, it has done so at the expense of diverse viewpoints and a trusted source of advice for ministers, the Institute for Government said.
The think tank also criticised what it called a long-standing “amateur approach to induction, support and management of special advisers” by successive governments.
The Johnson government has made several significant changes to the role and hiring and firing of spads in the last year.
Unlike previous administrations, more than a third of current spads work in No.10, and Johnson is using his advisers to direct ministers’ work “more closely” than some of his predecessors, according to the report.
And advisers based elsewhere in government are working more closely with No.10 than in the past, with many departments reporting to the PM’s team.
While this has some advantages – including a “stronger team spirit” and greater support to get things done – there are also significant downsides, the IfG said.
While the greater centralisation is a marked contrast to the “the dysfunction of Theresa May’s time as prime minister when advisers had to deal with a cabinet split into warring factions”, it also “disempowers ministers, who lose a trusted source of advice, and thereby leads to a weaker government overall”.
And changes to hiring and firing practices have also had mixed results, the report said. One “welcome” change is that the Conservative Party has published job adverts for special advisers for the first time, providing more open routes for people to become spads.
By contrast, a high-profile incident when Cummings dismissed Sonia Khan, adviser to then chancellor-Sajid Javid, was a “low point”. Such a dismissal "undermines a minister’s authority and decision making", the report said.
It added: “When the team in No.10 forces a minister to accept a particular adviser, or forces out an adviser appointed by another minister, it both disempowers that minister and creates an unproductive atmosphere of fear among advisers."
It called for ministers to be given the power to choose their own advisers, subject to the PM’s approval, rather than having candidates imposed on them by No.10.
Johnson has also given greater powers and responsibilities so some special advisers – most notably Cummings and David Frost, who was appointed chief Brexit negotiator and then national security adviser.
But the IfG said rules around transparency and accountability have not been updated in line with these changes. “While there are formal rules that govern the relationship between ministers, advisers and officials, these have not been updated for years. More responsibilities mean special advisers should be prepared to face more scrutiny,” it said.
Ministers should therefore agree to requests for “powerful and high-profile” special advisers to appear in front of select committees, the IfG said.
There have been several calls for Cummings to appear before select committees. In January, former head of the civil service Lord Kerslake said in January that a committee grilling was “pretty essential” given the extent of the reforms the political adviser – who has pushed for changes to civil service hiring and firing rules, among other things – intended to make to Whitehall.
As well as the recent changes, the report highlights a number of “longstanding obstacles” that should be addressed to improve the way spads work.
It said the civil service has recently been providing more professional support to special advisers and dealt with some issues, including a lack of transparency about salaries. “However, given the political nature of advisers’ roles, the civil service cannot solve all the problems they face, such as political disagreements with other advisers – that task falls to ministers,” it argued.
The report called for better training, to replace what it called a “sink or swim” approach where spads are expected to learn on the job with little induction. “Given that this job is so crucial to ministers, taking the time to explain to advisers how to be effective will pay dividends for the government,” it said.
And it also called on the prime minister to ensure ministers and his senior advisers provide “proper management support”, including grievance procedures – arguing that they “rarely take their responsibilities for managing advisers seriously”.
IfG associate director Tim Durrant, who wrote the report, said: “Special advisers play an essential role in any government and Boris Johnson’s administration is no different. But the way that special advisers work with No.10, and No.10’s approach to the hiring and firing of advisers, risks undermining the close relationship between a minister and their advisers.
“Rather than seeking to control everything that advisers do, No.10 should support them in their role as trusted members of ministers’ teams.”