Asking civil servants to cost opposition policies undermines their independence, says Jonathan Baume, and should be stopped

The political impartiality of the civil service is an oft-misunderstood concept. It is assumed by some that it means that the civil service stands as an independent umpire between the government and opposition parties. It does not. The role of the civil service is to serve the elected government with what cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell would describe as ‘pace, passion, pride and professionalism’.

Political impartiality means that the service is able to serve a government of a different political colour with equal zeal. Just as civil servants have been loyal to New Labour prime ministers, they will serve David Cameron equally loyally if he heads the next government.

Since its formation in 1919, the FDA has sought to support the civil service in upholding this impartiality – which is one of the bedrocks of our constitution – and, if appropriate, challenging the ministers and, occasionally, civil servants who undermine it.

One of our most recent interventions in the political landscape has been to challenge the Labour government over Alistair Darling’s use of HM Treasury civil servants to cost opposition policies in what was – to all intents and purposes – the start of the general election campaign. These costings were used to form the basis of Labour Party campaign material.

The practice of asking civil servants to cost opposition policies, which has been allowed since 1992, can only be carried out using politically determined assumptions. The formal guidance states that “ministers, assisted if they wish by their special advisers, should be responsible for identifying the text of commitments together with any further interpretations or assumptions necessary to allow the commitments to be costed”. So how could any such exercise be anything other than political?

It might just about be considered defensible during the normal business of a Parliament, but in the run-up to a general election it was a clear abuse of civil service resources provided by the taxpayer. Furthermore, it threatened to draw the civil service into the election campaign.

This dubious – at best – practice emerged in early January, but the issue of politicisation has been simmering over the autumn months. Other areas of concern include the prime minister’s decision to hold some cabinet meetings outside London, at significant cost. The locations just happened to be mainly in politically-important, ‘battleground’ constituencies.

Similarly, government advertising has soared, and in press work carried out by members of the Government Communications Network there is a fine line between what is appropriate, and what is an unacceptable use of civil service resources for party propaganda purposes.

Civil servants have a responsibility under the Civil Service Code to “make sure public money and other resources are used properly and efficiently”. And the rules for special advisers are similar: they should not “use official resources for party political activity”. Furthermore, they should “avoid anything which might reasonably lead to the criticism that people paid from public funds are being used for party political purposes”.

In addition to these duties, the Ministerial Code includes a requirement that ministers act properly: “Official facilities and resources may not be used for the dissemination of material which is essentially party political.”

Clearly, there is a fine line to be drawn. The government has the right to inform the public, and the civil service must continue in its loyalty to current ministers until a different government is formed. Ministers remain in office until at least the day after the general election; maybe longer in the event of a hung Parliament and negotiations between the parties.

However, the FDA believes the rules are sufficiently clear and unambiguous. An obvious solution to the problem of costing opposition policies by civil servants would be to put in place an immediate moratorium. Ministers wishing to get hold of this information should pay an independent body – such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies – to undertake this analysis based on publicly available data.

Of fundamental importance in all this is the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, which is currently being debated in Parliament. The FDA has campaigned over many years for the civil service values and the Civil Service Commission to be put on a statutory footing.

We are nearly at the point – more than 150 years since the Northcote-Trevelyan report first advocated it – of achieving this legislation. There is a strong argument for ditching much of the current bill and focusing on the civil service clauses to speedily secure royal assent for a Civil Service Bill.

But in the meantime the First Division Association will continue to intervene whenever the conduct of ministers – of whichever party – threatens the civil service’s impartiality.

Written by Jonathan Baume