This snapshot taken on 01/07/2007, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
|
40. Civil servants who give evidence to Select Committees do so on behalf of their Ministers and under their directions.
41. This is in accordance with the principle that it is Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for the policies and actions of their Departments. Civil servants are accountable to Ministers and are subject to their instruction; but they are not directly accountable to Parliament in the same way. It is for this reason that when civil servants appear before Select Committees they do so, on behalf of their Ministers and under their directions because it is the Minister, not the civil servant, who is accountable to Parliament for the evidence given to the Committee. This does not mean, of course, that officials may not be called upon to give a full account of Government policies, or indeed of their own actions or recollections of particular events, but their purpose in doing so is to contribute to the central process of Ministerial accountability, not to offer personal views or judgements on matters of political controversy (see paragraphs 55-56), or to become involved in what would amount to disciplinary investigations which are for Departments to undertake (see paragraphs 73 -78).
42. This Guidance should therefore be seen as representing standing instructions to officials appearing before Select Committees. These instructions may be supplemented by specific Ministerial instructions on specific matters.
43. The line of ministerial accountability means that it is for Ministers to decide which official or officials should represent them.
44. Where a Select Committee indicates that it wishes to take evidence from a particular named official, including special advisers, the presumption should be that Ministers will agree to meet such a request. However, the final decision on who is best able to represent the Minister rests with the Minister concerned and it remains the right of a Minister to suggest an alternative civil servant to that named by the Committee if he or she feels that the former is better placed to represent them. In the unlikely event of there being no agreement about which official should most appropriately give evidence, it is open to the Minister to offer to appear personally before the Committee.
45. Where a civil servant is giving evidence to a Select Committee for the first time, Departments will wish to ensure that they provide appropriate guidance and support. Committees may be willing to consider requests for individuals to be supported in oral evidence sessions by more experienced civil servants
46. It has also been agreed that it is not the role of Select Committees to act as disciplinary tribunals (see paragraphs 73-78). A Minister will therefore wish to consider carefully a Committee's request to take evidence from a named official where this is likely to expose the individual concerned to questioning about their personal responsibility or the allocation of blame as between them and others. This will be particularly so where the official concerned has been subject to, or may be subject to, an internal departmental inquiry or disciplinary proceedings. Ministers may, in such circumstances, wish to suggest either that he or she give evidence personally to the Committee or that a designated senior official do so on their behalf. This policy was set out in the then Government's response to a report from the Public Service Committee on Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility (First Report, Session 1996-97, HC 67).
47. If a Committee nonetheless insists on a particular official appearing before them, contrary to the Minister's wishes, the formal position remains that it could issue an order for attendance, and request the House to enforce it. In such an event the official, as any other citizen, would have to appear before the Committee but, in all circumstances, would remain subject to Ministerial instruction under the terms of this Guidance and the Civil Service Code.
48. Given the above, it is extremely rare, but not unprecedented, for Committees to request evidence from officials who have retired. A Committee could, again, issue an order for attendance if it chose. However, retired officials cannot be said to represent the Minister and hence cannot contribute directly to his or her accountability to the House. It is primarily for these reasons, as well as for obvious practical points of having access to up to date information and thinking, that Ministers would expect evidence on Government matters to be given by themselves or by serving officials who report to them.
49. If Departments wish to include any external experts in the team of officials giving evidence, the Clerk should be consulted with an explanation of the reasons. Most Committees are willing to agree to departmental requests of this kind but they are not obliged to do so.
50. Where a Select Committee wishes to take evidence on matters assigned to an Agency in its Framework Document, Ministers will, normally, wish to nominate the Chief Executive as being the official best placed to represent them. While Agency Chief Executives have managerial authority to the extent set out in their Framework Documents, like other officials they give evidence on behalf of the Minister to whom they are accountable and are subject to that Minister's instruction.
51. Departmental Select Committees have an important role in examining the expenditure, administration and policies of NDPBs. Lords Committees and other Committees may also seek evidence from NDPBs from time to time. Members of NDPBs invited to give evidence should be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information, taking care to ensure that no information is withheld which would not be exempted if a parallel request were made under the FOI Act. Further guidance for members of NDPBs invited to give evidence to select Committees is set out in the Cabinet Office publication Guidance on Codes of Practice for Board Members of Public Bodies.
52. Parliamentary proceedings are subject to absolute privilege, to ensure that those participating in them, including witnesses before select committees, can do so without fear of external consequences. This protection, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is an essential element in ensuring that Parliament can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors. There must be no disciplinary action taken against civil servants or members of NDPBs (or anyone else) as a consequence of them giving evidence to a Select Committee. Any such action might be regarded as contempt of the House, with potentially serious consequences for those involved. [See Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2003-04, HC1055.]
Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees Contents page >