Nov 01 2009
Independent advice – who monitors the advisers?
The last decade has seen the rise and rise of the idea that more and more things that used to be decided by Ministers and debated in Parliament should be decided by experts, free from political interference. This has helped fuel the decline of trust in Parliament, and is a response to a decline of trust in Parliament. Let me offer a voice of dissent.
The role of the Minister or elected politician is not to be the expert, but to use, interpret and deploy the expert opinion in framing policy and in making decisions about individual cases. Some Ministers are not up to doing this. Some Ministers are too political, failing to understand the government part of their role, and the need for hard work, attention to detail and good judgement based on fair analysis and reading good advice. The fact that there have been bad Ministers does not mean the theory is wrong – it may tell us more about how we recruit, fail to train and then fail to retain Ministers.
There are several dangers in moving over to a government by experts. The first is the absence of accountability. Place the experts in ivory tower quangos and tell Parliament it has to accept their judgement, and you place them beyond criticism, debate, pressure to reflect and change. The second is you trust people who might be most lacking in independence to come to a judgement on their issues. They are partisan for their cause, their profession, their way of doing things. The third is that many expert areas are riven by faction and disagreement. The experts who capture the quango or government body may only belong to one of the factions, and will not look fairly at other possible interpretations. The fourth is many issues run across more than one body of professional opinion and action, so it needs a generalist to pull it all together and make an overall decision.
Let us look at one or two examples. It has been fashionable for the last decade to say that monetary policy is too complex and technical to leave to politicians. Decisions about how much money to leave in the system and what price to charge for it was given to the MPC. In the decade of full MPC control we have had a more erratic lurch from boom to bust with an attempted lurch back again to boom than we had in the also erratic days of mixed control between the elected and the unelected officials. They did not even hit their inflation target, let alone create stable money market conditions. We had the first run on a bank for more than a century.
The previous poor decisions which damaged the Uk economy came about from a technical theory peddalled by the experts that we needed to belong to the Exchange Rate Mechanism to take politics out of settling interest rates. That was more evidence that Bank of England experts can get it badly wrong. It was also an expensive disaster. It was one which did less overall damage than today’s crisis because the elected officials stepped in and terminated the experiment.
Or consider the decision to take Ministers out of competition decisions. In recent years as Ministers have been excluded we have seen the rapid build up of mega banks that no sensible competition authority would have allowed with an ounce of political nous. In the end the government overrode its own so called independent authority to allow the foolish merger of Lloyds and HBOS, making it worse. The independence did not work when it mattered.
There is one simple truth many do not wish to acknowledge. If you want to live in a representative elected democracy, the experts can never be permanently in charge. Germany was said to have an indepednent Central bank which guaranteed the strength of the DM in the post war world. Yet when it mattered the elected officials overruled it on the issue of the Ost mark/DM merger, and then overruled it again with the decision to destroy the successful domestic currency people had been told was secure through Central bank independence, to replace it with the Euro. I think both decisions were poor, but I think the politicians had every right to make them, as it was their view of the democratic wish of the German people.
Elected officials may delegate powers to experts from time to time. If the experts make wise decisions, or are working in areas of little political interest, they may stay apparently independent for a long time. Once they make a mistake or their issue gains high political salience, the elected officials will intervene.
For this reason above all, I say there is no substitute for the elected officials getting better trained to examine and interpret expert advice. The public does not necessarily share expert views on gm foods, nuclear risks, climate change, human tissue experimentation, types of medical operation and a host of other things. It is the business of politics to explain the expert opinion and if necessary to limit or abate it in the light of public views and the government’s perception of the public interest. Good Ministers have judgement. If bad Ministers just trust the advice they sometimes will be let down by that.
22 Responses to “Independent advice – who monitors the advisers?”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
The abrogation of responsibility to “advisors” and newly placed “press officers”, to ride rough shod over anything unsympathetic to government dictat, then allows a PM and his cohorts to concentrate on hanging on to power through smears and spin. Got them three terms so far. Might even make a fourth!
Gordon Brown, who knows nothing about banking, shotguns the merger of Lloyds & HBOS.
A load of people who know a lot about banking have spent a year working out how to make the merger work.
Gordon Brown, who knows nothing about banking, breaks up the Lloyds-HBOS merger.
There is NO situation a government cannot make worse.
Experts often come from academia. If you thought politics was full of political, back biting, egotistical, detatched, bitchy, narrow minded people you obviously haven’t spent much time understanding the philosophy of science.
If you care to interpret the reality of Karl Popper’s almost universally accepted model of scientific paradigms being over turned by younger generations you will find aged Professors defending corrupt ideas using every back stabbing tool at their disposal.
The very idea of dialectic progress is based on not being right – that is thesis and anti-thesis followed by synthesis. Any decent scientific question should start with the null-hypothesis that it is wrong.
Scientific experts all have opinions because the only science that is complete is a complete theory of theoretical physics – and we don’t have that yet.
Science does have it’s place. But where it interacts with humans then humans have elected politicians to interpret it.
Ministers shouldP NEVER have a single Chief scientific advisor. They should always, at the very least, receive the dialectic anti-thesis. Where a Chief scientific advisor does exist understand that the
Minister has been flattered and deceived into creating that role.
It just goes to show how few good ministers we have had in the last decade or more….
Part of the problem is that there will always be experts in the same field who contradict each other. If you have one from each point of view, you should have stalemate, unless someone sorts out which theory is being given credence. That’s the job of the Minister, but it does assume a level of competence that we do not see.
If the Minister were at least interested in the subject that they hold the brief for, it would be more encouraging. However, when the PM just stuffs the Cabinet with todays favorites, there is never going to be a big enough pool of capable politicians to draw from.
I remember John Major promoting an ex-nurse (Virginia Bottomley) to look after the NHS. She might have been rubbish at the job, but at least she had an idea of the environment that was the subject of her brief.
JR: Is it possible to return to being able to reply directly to each other? The debate was rather more lively then.
Reply: I will ask the server. I did not ask to stop the old system!
“Government expert” is an oxymoron.
What an outstanding and thoughtful piece of writing that was!
Well done!
Two other little points to add:
1. Lobbyists are the way that experts find out, all too often, what they “ought” to do. I personally would give gay rights and global warming as two examples of very effective lobbying here. There are others. Euthanasia could be the next nig thing. (I am NOT discussing my own views on either of these views: they really do not matter).
2. Science is too often brought in to “prove” a point. It just doesn’t work like that. A good example is cannabis and the sacking of the Chairman by the Home Secretary. Science doesn’t “know” or “believe” anything. It proceeds by a series of experiments to test fallible and temporary theories.
If only we had some ministers who knew what they were doing and who were given the freedom to do it!
I have to disagree slightly.
While I accept that the final decision has to lay at the door of the responsible minister, if that minister also chooses to go against the formal advice, then they should also be required to explain why they are choosing to ignore the advice.
In essence, if the advice is 2+2=4, and the Minister decides to make policy based on the presumption that 2+2=5, then they have to stand up in Parliament and justify their decision.
Otherwise, why bother commissioning the advice in the first place?
Much of the problems about the drugs issue is that there is overwhelming evidence that so called soft-drugs are less dangerous than alcohol, and yet one is banned and the other is not.
This smacks quite simply as hypocrisy – and that never looks good.
I am also reminded of comments that have been made recently on the news regarding the Kelly report into MPs expenses, where various MPs have said that independent reports shouldn’t be watered down, etc etc etc.
I am left wondering why an report into expenses affecting a few hundred people is sacrosanct, while a medical report that could affect millions of people can be discarded as inconvenient.
Something is wrong with this picture.
The key point here is that those experts must be motivated by what is best for Britain. I’ve long suspected they aren’t and that Whitehall has been subject of a political coup and that the real policymakers are entrenched in offices with their hands on the levers of power beyond the effects of electoral change:
Vote Conservative – get leftism
Vote Labour – get leftism
Don’t vote – get leftism
Surely the Ministers should be getting advice from a range of experts – it is for the government to choose the agenda, not for a single expert to set it.
Worse than delegating powers to experts our elected representatives have given away governmental powers to an anti-democratic body called the EU. Taken together, it suggests that those who seek power are incapable of exercising it. Consequently, they pass it to some other body to perform without any reference to, or approval from, those from whom they were awarded this temporary authority – and we call this democracy!
as it was their view of the democratic wish of the German people.
The phrase it was their view failed to seek ratification from the voting public on the very cornerstone of The Federal Republic formed in 1949. That was the betrayal of The Bundesrepublik by politicians just as much as when they voted for The Enabling Act in The Reichstag.
Your point about Rule By Experts is a valuable one. Those who think Professor Nutt should act in an unaccountable fashion and pronounce policy will no doubt favour similar freedoms being granted to Generals in our political system.
Much as I loathe Alan Johnson I support his action fully. As I recall both Harry S Truman had to fire General McArthur and Jimmy Carter had to fire Maj-Gen John Singlaub in 1977 when his “expert” opinion challenged the authority of The President of the United States.
Turning to Norman Fowler’s memoir of the Thatcher years, “Minister’s Decide”, I am reminded that he chose his title from a reply Margaret Thatcher gave in parliament to a question about one of her advisors, Alan Walters – “Advisors advise, Ministers decide”.
John, by and large I agree with your thesis.
But if ministers are to decide they have to be prepared to substantiate their decisions. An argument that says the decision must be right simply because it is based on the advice received lacks credibility if (1) advisors have been chosen by a minister to be likely to give the advice wanted (2) the minister is unable to show sufficient grasp of the subject such that the decision lacks credibility.
The minister should be able to explain why, or why not, the advices has led in whole or in part to the decision announced.
There is one further key point to make, which is illustrated by the current controversy surrounding Professor Nutt, and that is the need to distinguish between scientific fact and political policy. If parliament has decided that there shall be a system where by drugs are placed in one of three categories based on technical criteria, and you appoint qualified people to advise into which category each drug shall be placed on the basis of the evidence, then it pretty stupid for an unqualified minister to reject that advice. It does not matter what authority the minister has to decide: if the ministerial decision is at odds with the scientific fact then the minister is a fool and should be derided. In this case the minister seems to think the classification is one of “messages”, which it is not.
[This is reminiscent of the way Galileo was treated by the authorities in his time, who could not accept the scientific fact that the earth was not the centre of the universe because it disagreed with their theology.]
It is not that the minister did not have other options. If the classification system is wrong then a different system could be substituted. If a particular political message was needed then that could be done by other means.
As to the generalist, I am all in favour. I would be happy to be called one myself. But generalists need specialist experts. Generalists should cherish the experts upon whom they lean for support. The generalist who presents himself as knowing better than his expert is doomed to failure and won’t last long.
“….. you trust people who might be most lacking in independence to come to a judgement on their issues. They are partisan for their cause, their profession, their way of doing things.”
How true. A particularly striking example is in the field of climate change. There are experts on both sides, but almost all governments seem to accept unquestioningly the case for anthropogenic global warming.Thank goodn ss for Christopher Booker and Nigel Lawson
John
Agree with your points about it being necessary to ask for expert opinion from time time, also very much agree that many experts differ in their opinion. Global warming and Drugs being the latest topics.
How correct you are that the duty of a Minister is to act as a sort of Chairmen to these expert opinions, which are I assume debated during many meetings, and then temper it with public opinion and to a degree, Party policy (on which any Government is elected).
The problem in recent years has been:
A choice of expert made, based on the percieved results that they will recomend.
A choice of so called expert who is totally loyal to a Political Party (financial donations spring to mind)
A choice of expert made by a Minister with absolutely no Knowledge of the subject in question.
A choice of expert who is not questioned in any way with a contra idea from another expert on the same subject.
The fact that we have Ministers changing positions at yearly intervals, like a childrens game of musical chairs, adds to the chaos of research and investigation of almost any subject, as the new Minister usually have their own agenda, and we start the process all over again.
Why do we employ these so called experts full time, why do we not pay them for an individual report, research etc, if one is required, and then be done with it. If they are on the payroll full time, then they can hardly be called independent can they.
The fact that many Ministers have been promoted way above their competence level, are totally unsuitable for the role, and are out of their depth, just adds to the iceing on a very expensive cake.
This begs an interesting question. We used to have a system where people of genuine eminence in their field were promoted to the Lords, where they made a valuable input in scrutinizing legislation. Indeed, many MPs were also selected on the basis of possessing an expertise. We now have a system where MPs are mainly chosen for their slavish loyalty to a party line, and where those who can think independently and logically tend to be marginalised. Meantime, the Lords is stuffed with political appointees, and there is a whiff of cash for patronage although “not proven”.
The threat is that the Lords might be elected on some basis that would do nothing to enhance its role as a revising chamber. Perhaps their ought to be constituencies demarcated not by geography, but rather by areas of expertise. Current evidence suggests that too few members of either house have the intellectual or moral capacity to learn new tricks. There are, of course, honourable exceptions… which is why I read and contribute here.
“For this reason above all, I say there is no substitute for the elected officials getting better trained to examine and interpret expert advice”.
That, I think, would be an excellent idea; I also think we want to slow decision making down to get away from the ‘off the cuff’ culture for the sake of a TV soundbite. A bit of reflection and thinking things through from first principles would be good.
One thing this government has been good at, was described by Lindblom as “the science of muddling through”**. The number of Bills that have been introduced on the same subject area, in the last twelve years, are numerous. Goals and and objectives are rarely achieved; that is, if they were ever rationally defined. Adjusting policy, every time a one man and a dog pressure group gets air time on the BBC, shows a lack of values and beliefs in governments basic concepts.
We have “issues” politics nowadays, not “ideologies”. Nor do we have a portfolio of basic “values” that build those ideologies. With the result that we have a rag bag of disconnected bureaucratic systems and structures at national and local level, that the populace has no hope of understanding; or, identifying the bugger responsible.
Without these values, there is no glue to hold a nation together. Every deviant activity becomes an accepted norm; judgement against those values, non-existent. Thus you end up with – as I hear this morning – kids skateboarding over war memorials.
**: See, Andrew Heywood: “Key Concepts in Politics”
“In the decade of full MPC control we have had a more erratic lurch from boom to bust with an attempted lurch back again to boom than we had in the also erratic days of mixed control between the elected and the unelected officials”.
Agreed but the MPC was never really in full control. Brown directed them to keep inflation within certain margins but then changed the index by which inflation was measured.
I find it almost impossible to believe but has the MPC for several years now been controlling an artificially low inflation rate in reality? I would be very interested in your view on this.
I think the problem is that government experts are chosen not for their expertise but for their willingness to say the expert opinion is what the government says it is. This morning on the Marr show the government’s chief health official was asked, 3 times, whether Profesor Nutt’s assessment of the drugs risk was correct & 3 times refused to answer ultimately saying that (A) he should have given his advice entirely behind closed doors so that the public wouldn’t know & (B) that because the public thought drugs uniquely dangerous the politicians need to take their ignorance into account. The contradiction is obvious.
Compare & contrast 2 other government experts who got it wrong, or at least said things blatantly untrue. Sir David King as the government’s chief science advisor said that by 2100 “Antarctica will be the only habitable contin et” & got no breath of criticism. Sir John Scarlett was chosen by Blair to investigate if Iraq had WMDs & duly assured the government & people that he did – as reward he was made boss of MI6 from which he retires today. My guess is that Professor Nutt isn’t in line for a knighthood.
I very much agree with this line of arguement. There should be no power without responsibility; no responsibility without power is the corollary.
The mismanagement of monetary policy is not wholly the fault of the Govenor of the Bank of England and the MPC. The wrong type of inflation target was set. If asset prices generally, and house prices in particular, had been included in the calculation of inflation, monetary policy would have been a lot tighter. A challenge for politicians – define a suitable inflation index. And another challenge – explain why 2% or 2.5% inflation is better than 0% inflation.
Following the theme of no responsibilty without power, are referenda such a good idea? The Conservatives are commited (perhaps) to holding a referendum on the Lisbon “Treaty” if elected. A better way would be to promise to de-ratify that Constitution on day one of taking office, having published the text of a draft Bill to repeal the enabling Act during the coming general election campaign. That way politicians would have both take responsibility and have a mandate for renegotiating our relationship with the EU.
Finally, what is the best way to train politicians to take the difficult decisions that will came their way? Personally, I think that every budding MP should be given Gulliver’s Travels to read, and be examined on it in depth before being allowed to take his/her seat. But then I am a nasty old cynic.
“A challenge for politicians – define a suitable inflation index”.
I agree entirely with you, Lindsay. Is what I suggest in my final para at 12.24 actually a true statement of what has happened for a number of years?
It is appalling if it is; if so, why has nobody done anything to sort it out?
That Plato. Always was a wrong ‘un.
That just about does it for the ‘Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’ then. Good. Parliament, that is me and all us neighbours, is sovereign.