Working to make government more effective

Comment

Government and the EU Referendum

Over the coming months we will have the rare sight of Cabinet ministers disagreeing publicly over a central question of government policy: the UK’s membership of the European Union. Peter Riddell looks at what has in the past been a tricky period for both ministers and civil servants.

Handling this unusual, and limited, breach of the usual convention of collective ministerial responsibility will require not only skilful political leadership from David Cameron but also understanding about what is, and is not, permitted between now and the referendum.

The long-established principle of British government is that once a policy is agreed, the principle of unanimity applies and ministers speak and vote together. This is in order to underpin collective decision making and to provide cohesion. Formal agreements to differ have been rare: twice during coalition governments, in 1932 over tariff policy and during the 2010-15 Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition on a list of issues, notably tuition fees, set out in the original coalition agreement. The closest parallel with today is the 1975 referendum on the UK’s membership of the then European Community. Faced with growing dissent by a number of ministers, Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced that if ministers did not feel able to accept the Cabinet’s decision, they would be free to support and speak in favour of a different conclusion.

Wilson later set out guidelines stating that:

  • The freedom did not extend to parliamentary proceedings and official business.
  • All ministers, whatever their views, had to state the Government’s position in Parliament and in European meetings.
  • Ministers were ‘to avoid personalizing or trivialising the argument, and not to allow themselves to appear in direct confrontation, on the same platform or progamme, with another minister who takes a different view’.

During the Commons debate on whether to approve continued membership, Eric Heffer, an Industry minister of state, spoke from the backbenches against the decision and the guidelines, and was immediately dismissed. There were more minor squalls when dissenting ministers pointedly distanced themselves in answering questions from ‘the views of the Government’.

As Sir Stephen Wall points out in the second volume of The Official History of Britain and the European Community, the attempt to ban Labour ministers from confronting each other had to be abandoned during the last few days of campaigning because ITV planned a two-hour televised debate. Under the original guidance, the case for continued membership would have been presented entirely by Opposition leaders against dissenting Labour ministers. In the event, Roy Jenkins and Tony Benn had what Wilson called a ‘public brawl’ on television, a still vivid series of exchanges.

In a guidance note to ministers issued in January, on the advice of the Cabinet Secretary David Cameron followed the thrust of the Wilson approach. He has sought to keep ministers in line until the Cabinet decision, and then will permit limited dissent on the specific EU membership question. All other EU related business, including negotiations and debates in Parliament will be subject to the normal rules of collective responsibility.

As in 1975, there will be a clear government position on whether to remain or leave the EU, and it will be the duty of the Civil Service to support that position in the normal way: ‘It will not be appropriate or permissible for the civil service or individual civil servants to support ministers who oppose the Government’s official position by providing briefings or speech material on this matter’.

A key distinction has been drawn between the next three months and the final 28 days of the referendum campaign. In one of the main differences with 1975, what happens during campaign periods is now formally regulated under the 2000 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. An attempt to change this to allow the Government more flexibility on EU issues during the campaign was defeated in the Commons in September.

So civil servants can produce material backing ‘remain’, but not ‘leave’ until the start of the last 28 days. There will be questions about how far civil servants should be involved with campaigning activities before the 28 days. As Catherine Haddon has pointed out, civil servants and ministers will have to be conscious of what constitutes campaign-related support.

The other big difference compared with 1975 is the growth in numbers and role of special advisers, then just starting to appear. The Prime Minister’s recent guidance said that ministers opposing the Government’s official position will be able to draw on personal help from their special advisers, provided this is in line with their wishes and does not draw on official resources. And ministers can work with external campaign teams. Separate rules will apply to special advisers during the final 28 days of the campaign.

The latest guidance reflects the reality of what happened in 1975, rather than Wilson’s original note, saying that while dissenting ministers will not speak in debates on Europe, they will not be expected to pretend to back the Government line while answering questions. The guidance note ends with an appeal, like the Wilson one in 1975, for ministers to remain ‘despite differences on this one issue, a united harmonious, mutually respectful team’.

The key to this will lie less in the formal guidance than in the behaviour of ministers during the heat of the campaign. Unlike 1975, the current indications are that Conservative ministers will not be confronting each other on television, in the hope of avoiding a re-run of the Jenkins/Benn brawl. And similarly, politicians from different parties are likely to campaign separately rather than appear together.

Suspension of the normal rules of collective responsibility is always regarded as highly exceptional. The lessons from the past, both from 1975 and from the recent coalition, are that the exceptions need not prevent a government from functioning – though there tend to be lasting political scars.

Related content