The updated guidance on the Osmotherly Rules

This is a potentially important change, both for select committees and for the running of major projects, though the rules are solely a product of government and have never been endorsed or accepted by Parliament. The announcement by Francis Maude follows months of tricky negotiations within Whitehall, not least with permanent secretaries concerned about their role as accounting officers responsible to Parliament. Select committee chairs have wanted for some time to be able to question identified key officials in charge of big projects, to assess progress and any problems. At the same time, ministers have sought to improve the running of big programmes now overseen by the Major Projects Authority by putting more public responsibility on SROs. The revised Osmotherly rules restate the primacy of the principle of ministerial accountability to Parliament but, crucially, widen the definition of civil servants who have direct accountability. SROs will be personally accountable to select committees and ‘be expected to explain the decisions and actions they have taken during the period they are responsible for delivery of their project. This could include where a minister and/or official has intervened to change the project during the implementation phase in a way which has implications for the costs and/or timeline of implementation. The SRO will also be able to disclose their advice about any such changes’. This is unquestionably an advance, but, as the Institute pointed out in our report Civil Service Accountability to Parliament in September 2013, much will depend on how candid officials are in practice about what they have been asked to do by ministers, including current ones. This has normally been an area where officials have preferred discretion to confrontation. And the revised rules pointedly say that ‘it is important to be clear that SRO accountability relates only to implementation, it will remain for the minister to account for the relevant policy decisions and development’. The line between policy and implementation is often uncertain and imprecise, and offers opportunities for obfuscation and evasion. Permanent secretaries, as accounting officers, can be called to support a SRO at a hearing though only if requested by the select committee. But permanent secretaries will, of course, retain their special position and relations with the Public Accounts Committee. One important consequence is that more care is likely to be devoted to the appointment of SROs, where there has often been considerable turnover in the past, as ministers have complained and committee reports have pointed out. The names of SROs for the Government’s Major Project Portfolio (as defined by the Major Projects Authority) will now be published, as will a letter of appointment defining the tenure of the role, extent and limit of accountability, a statement about the status of the project, objectives and performance criteria etc. This represents a further lifting of civil service anonymity below the level of permanent secretary and an increase in accountability and responsibility. These new arrangements will only work if both departments and select committees develop a cooperative approach and avoid, on the one hand, a prickly defensivesness, and, on the other hand, an excessive aggression and point-scoring approach. Accountability should be robust, but the counterpart of increased openness is recognition that all projects involve risks and mistakes.