PM’s spad reforms ‘weakening government’
IfG calls for No.10 to relinquish some power over hiring and firing, and for increased scrutiny of highprofile advisers. By Beckie Smith
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.
Greater centralisation “disempowers ministers, who lose a trusted source of advice, and thereby leads to a weaker government overall”, and has 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.”