The increase in ministerial directions should not become a habit

It is the job of civil servants to warn ministers when unanswered questions remain over a proposed government policy. An when ministers are warned that a policy may be poor value for money or that there are concerns over whether it can be implemented, they will normally decide to pursue other options.

However, one of the findings in Whitehall Monitor 2021, our annual assessment of the size and shape of central government, was that the number of ministerial directions reached its highest level ever in 2020: there were 19 last year, compared to an annual average of fewer than three over the last decade. Directions are formal instructions for civil servants to continue with a policy despite their concerns about its value for money, feasibility, regularity or propriety. This means the minister, rather than the accounting officer (usually the permanent secretary) is accountable for whether the money spent achieves its objectives.

As the scale of the crisis became clear, it is understandable that ministers wanted to get money out of the door quickly to shore up public services and the economy.  But there are reasons why this is an undesirable habit – and one which risks destabalising long-established working relationships between ministers and officials.

Directions do not mean that the policy was the wrong decision

Fourteen of the directions last year were related to the Covid-19 pandemic, including emergency support for transport services, various schemes to support businesses struggling in the economic downturn and the chancellor’s controversial Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Seven were issued by the secretary of state for business.

In the context of the pandemic, an increase in directions was almost inevitable – it will not always have been possible to design schemes with the best value for money, or with 100% certainty that they could be implemented in exactly the way officials had in mind. Moving quickly to support households, businesses and public services was clearly the right thing to do at the beginning of the pandemic.

And this is not a new phenomenon: Alistair Darling, chancellor of the exchequer during the 2008 financial crisis, directed Treasury officials to guarantee UK savings in Icelandic banks, something that was the right decision politically despite the fact that from a Treasury point of view it was not the best way to spend public money. So the increase in directions does not invariably mean an increase in bad policies.

The increase in directions risks a reduction in scrutiny

However, the fact that there has been such a high number of directions means that, individually, they may each receive less scrutiny, whether from parliament or the media. Departments have to inform the National Audit Office, parliament’s spending watchdog, about directions. The NAO then tells the Commons’ Public Accounts Committee, who can choose to investigate the substance of the direction in more detail. But with the large number issued during the pandemic, each individual direction is at risk of getting lost in the noise.

What’s more, it is not always easy to know when ministers have issued directions, as they are sometimes not made public for many months. This was the case of directions covering issues including government financial support for the mooted Garden Bridge in London and the decision not to settle a court case brought by a special adviser who was dismissed by the prime minister’s then adviser, Dominic Cummings. The potential for political embarrassment should not be a sufficient reason for ministers to delay the publication of directions.  

Ministers should not let directions become a habit

Directions are evidence that, at times, democratically elected ministers base their decision on factors that their impartial officials cannot always capture in their advice. That is entirely appropriate. However, if we see similar numbers of directions after the pandemic, ministers will need to ask themselves why they continue to override officials’ advice; and officials will need to consider whether their advice is delivering what ministers need. Moving quickly and making decisions without being certain of the result may sometimes be the right thing to do during a crisis, but it should not become the default mode of governing.