22/11/2013 The Week in Parliament

jacket but there may be something to your taste. Now on BBC time for the

week in Parliament. Welcome to the week in Parliament. Reserve troops

are regulars, the battle lines were drawn up in the Commons as the rebel

forces tried to ambush the government. The original plan was to

maintain the regulars until the reserve is could take their place.

That plan has not been scrapped. What we cannot accept is the

destabilisation of the programme. Could we be in for another

Westminster battle? Between civil servants and another breed of

special advisers? The taxpayer will be charged ?16 million a year so he

can be advised by his mates. In a move towards a Jew is, west Wing

type of government which is completely unpopular as far as the

countries concerned. Later, women bishops, are they on the way in, and

Twitter, should it the only way at Westminster. A potential

embarrassing defeat for the government was averted on Wednesday

when MPs on the Commons voted down a rebel Conservative MP's than to call

a halt to the replacing of regular soldiers with reserve is. Under the

policy, the Army reserve, formerly the territorial Army would increase

in numbers. From 19,000 to 30,000. Some Tory MPs had been concerned at

the slow pace of recruitment of reserve is. When the defence reform

bill was debated on Wednesday, the arguments were principally between

between Conservative MPs. The principle between the change in the

proportion of reserves and regulars was exactly right. It brings us into

line with many more contemporary countries. The proviso in practice

was the change would not take place in productions with the regulars

until such times as we saw the improvements in training and

equipping the numbers in the reserves. The problem for the House

of Commons was we had very little information to go on. We do know

things are not going well. Reserve list recruitment targets are being

badly missed. EA numbers are falling. There is a widening

capability gap as a result. We have deviated from the original plan as

was clearly confirmed by the former Secretary of State who made it very

clear this was not the original plan. The original plan was to

maintain the regulars until the reserve is could take their place.

That plan has not been scrapped. As we keep missing the reserve of

recruitment targets, the capability gap gets ever wider. We are creating

a mechanism where annual leave the house will receive a progress report

on the state of the reserves and I would expect the house to debate

that progress report. That is providing the level of scrutiny that

the honourable gentleman seeks. What we cannot accept is the

destabilisation of the programme that is introducing an artificial

herbal. The effect of the schools will not be to guarantee a larger

regular army, the effect will be to devastate our attempts to rebuild

the reserve forces by putting them all on hold. Is it not better they

carry on speech and the resolving the issues by putting a halt on

further delay to sorting out the problems? Can we be very clear, what

we are talking about is not any conflict or preference for reserves

or regulars. We are talking about numbers. Competency, capability for

the defence of the round. That is what we are talking about. What we

need to be assured of and which this house largely does not feel

confident that we have is that the government's plans will provide us

with the numbers in the competency and capability. That is what the

clauses about and it a pause. It is not a thrown away of the plan. It is

a pause. The arguments over reserve lists and regular troops. Could

Whitehall be about to undergo an Americanisation? No longer

Westminster but west Wing fourth stop for those followers of logical

TV dramas, the new generation of special advisers known as extended

ministerial offices are about to be appointed to help ministers run the

country. Could the arrival of this new breed cause friction with

traditional senior civil servants. We will discuss the issues with two

people who have expert insights on the running of government. First the

idea of new special advisers was based in the Commons on Tuesday at

question Time. Canon in responding to my supplementary the Deputy Prime

Minister told the house about plans to be announced this week that each

Cabinet member is going to be allowed to appoint up to ten

personal advisers in move towards a US, west Wing type of government

which would be completely unpopular as far as the country is concerned.

This is not a plan to import an endless series of political

advisers. It is recognising something that has been recommended

to government by a number of independent think tanks which is in

order to allow ministers access to external policy expertise which is

sometimes lacking within Whitehall. In addition to the supplementary

people, and the news this morning cabinet ministers will be allowed to

have additional ten political appointees, does the Deputy Prime

Minister and could is right the taxpayer will be charged ?16 million

a year in addition to the current bill so that he and his Cabinet

colleagues can be advised by their mates? The average salary cost of

special advisers is 9% lower than it was in the administration of the

previous labour administration. Nick Clegg answering questions on

Tuesday. I'm joined in a studio by Paul Richards who used to be a Labor

special adviser. He worked for Hazel Blair when she was a Home Office

Minister and Dave Penman, general section `` secretary of an

association which represents senior civil servants. Welcome to the week

in Parliament. You are not very pleased by this new idea of a

special breed of special advisers? We had some significant concerns

when the government announced in some of these extended ministerial

offices to support ministers in government would be staffed by

personal appointees by ministers. That crossed the line for us about

what the role of the civil service is. It created issues on

impartiality. What we have seen develop since the summer, is a set

of rules that rings some safeguards to the process. These will be

appointments that are limited to five years. They will be subject to

the civil service code. They will be managed by civil servants. They will

only be bought in with approval of the Prime Minister that a minister

can have these. That they are an individual who has the skill set of

experience that is currently available. One of your initial

objections was that special advisers could give orders to senior civil

servants? Special advisers have a very particular role. It is one we

support and civil servants support. They give ministers political advice

and everyone understands how that operates. It is good for ministers

and good for civil servants. Initially when the announcement was

made the concern was these would be a hybrid between civil servants and

political appointees. I think the rules allow now for Drake `` greater

transparency in the sort of safeguards we are looking for. Paul

Richards gives a flavour of a day in the life of a special adviser. You

have been working in government. The idea is they are shadow we figures.

What do they do? We know far too much of them when they get involved

in scandals. The day starts very early, monitoring the media,

advising the Minister of what is on the papers and television and

Twitter. Shadowing the meaty is `` meetings. And visits and media

interviews. Going with them to the house a player making statements to

the house. Giving them a good talking to afterwards. Post match

analysis. Being with them every hour of the day on official duties. A

very close contact thing. Very different from the extended office

thing we have been discussing. As their attention, a long`standing

tension between a long serving civil servant and a special adviser

attached to a minister? Wendy relationship works will works

extremely well. It is and everyone's and dressed for those

roles to be extinct it reinforces the demarcation between the two. We

are coming up to the 50th anniversary of special advisers.

Harold Wilson introduced them. You need that role but you have two and

forced the impartiality of the civil servants. That is how you square

that circle. This idea of extended offices and officers who are not

quite advisers, this is quite difficult, it could underline ``

alert the activities of the special adviser. There is a Parliamentary

list, salaries are known, it is a specific job. That means no one else

can arrive and say I am a special adviser. I saw Paul Flowers being

described as a special adviser, he would say he is not. It needs a

clear distinction between special advisers and everyone else. Is this

a sign of the time that the civil servant is being marginalised as we

see more of these special adviser types and as extended ministerial

office are coming in. This is a culture change for Whitehall?

Government has to reform and respond to the demands of ministers being

made. To some degree, this reflects that ministers feel they are under a

lot of pressure. The government looks to other countries and how

they organised the sorts of offices and demonstrated the support given

to ministers in this country was significantly less than a lot of

other than PCs around the world. I think that is fair. What is

important there is clarity over argue a civil servant, are you

subject to the civil service code or argue a special adviser. Overseas

visitors come to Whitehall and see the level of support a minister

gets, maybe five civil servants, people in their 20s, compare that to

the American system or other systems, they do find it quite plain

that we have so few people. Departments are under a lot of

resource pressure, they see 25% cuts in staffing. It will take a brave

minister to say what I think is a priority in this department is

dozens more civil servants supporting me as a minister. We have

seen some concern. They think it is a fair criticism, comparing this to

the West Wing? Ministers do need good support. It is crazy that they

do not. A junior minister does not have been allocated speechwriter.

Editor at `` do not necessarily have a team that is five or six strong.

Would you do not want to do is blur the line in the middle. This has

come out in a few leaks here and they're. The public will not be

policed. `` will not be pleased at the sheer cost of all these extras.

How do you ensure the public it will improve government efficiency? It is

not compulsory. We have to make a case to the Prime Minister. There

will be greater visibility around the resources allocated were in the

past some ministers had pointed civil servants and experts outside

and has been clouded. The transparency will provide a good

discipline for ministers. People would know about it and will be able

to challenge things. We heard from a MP talking about the importance of

mates. There is an impression that the minister will just point their

friends. They should appoint somebody they know as a special

adviser, someone they trust. It is a close personal relationship. If it

extends beyond that, I think it is dangerous. You do not want the

system in other countries where it is like your brother`in`law. There

are rules. If an individual minister wants to appoint someone, there will

be an someone overseeing the appointments. The only value in the

job is that you are saying things honestly as you see it. A good

minister will appoint someone who is good at that. Otherwise, what is the

point? Is the public going to except this? I suspect the public will need

to take a lot of convincing. I would agree. Given the strain on resources

in the public service, ministers will have to think long and hard

about that. Ministers will have to make a good case on why the spending

resources... Hard argument to win. The sums in the money is minute

compared to the big spending of the government. Thank you very much for

joining us. Some thoughts on advisers. One year ago, plenty of

consternation when the idea of women bishops was narrowly rejected. One

year on, things are different. They approved measures this week which

could allow the ordination of women bishop next year. The Church of

England representative in the Commons told us what happened. By an

overwhelming majority, it was a `` proposals were approved to enable us

to see women bishops in the Church of England by 2015, 2016 at the very

latest. What happens next? Further procedures within the general Synod

next February. Drink because of year, it will come to Parliament. ``

hopefully next year. I am confident, having seen the

overwhelming support this measure had yesterday in general synod, but

this will go through Parliament without any difficulty. How likely

will be proposals succeed? I cannot see any reason why we should not see

women being consecrated as bishops in the Church of England in the near

future? When will we see the first in Bishop take a seat in the House

of Lords? The government will work with the church to an sure that can

happen as soon as possible. There was something of a

Parliamentary first on Wednesday. An extract from live Twitter comments

made by a former labour MP. History was made this week when a

tweet sent during Prime Minister is questions was cited by David Cameron

himself. `` Prime Minister's questions. I hope I can explain this

tweet from Tony McNulty. The former labour security minister.

I would stay up with the tweet if you want to get on the right side of

this one. We asked one keen Twitter user. It is not easy. It is deeply

partisan. And his own learning that tweaking has its drawbacks. In

September, Mr Cameron had this advice for Labour's MP. Let me point

this out. I follow these things closely. She tweeted this morning

that she had a question for the Prime Minister and she asked for

questions `` suggestions. The first question came back. How happy are

you that the leader of the Labor Party. Be in place come the next

election? Why reject that advice? And not

everyone is a fan. This month, the Chancellor use Twitter to reveal a

new date for a big Parliamentary event. The Autumn statement. Neither

Labour nor the speaker was amused. Is it appropriate that the

Chancellor announced this change on Twitter and not that this house?

Even today, it has not been confirmed by a statement. Nor was it

mentioned in last week was made as the statement. Given the fact that

the Chancellor announced the original net `` they buy Twitter as

well, could you warn if he is conduct was in order? To put it very

candidly and bluntly, these announcements should be made to the

house. Not by the mechanism of Twitter. That is probably not the

final word on the subject. I think Labour will learn what happened next

week. There is no reason, in terms of protocol, on why they cannot

raise a tweet. The real problem for the Lib Dems, it may have to remain

mute in the chamber but not outside it. David Cameron's eagerness to

follow Twitter may backfire. Wine Labour and P invited his supporters

to tweet their questions. `` wine and labour MP.

There was the unveiling of a more trustworthy NHS. The Health

Secretary said the NHS in England needed to have a profound

transformation to create a learning culture. One of the most chilling

accounts in this report came from employees are considered the care

they sought to be normal. Cruelty became normal in all the NHS. No one

noticed. Changing the culture is not done by statements, nor legislation

in this house, it is done by working inside the NHS. It is not the

central driver of the recommendations to an sure never

again shall we have that `` have closed institutions in a closed

system. While the Royal `` was the Royal Navy sold off to cheaply? ``

Royal Mail. The bank is to advise the government faced questions. For

all of the money you paid, you are not very clever at your job. This

was a large, complicated deal. It was against an uncertain backdrop in

the markets. From a company level, with the ongoing strike and it, in

that context, it was a well executed transaction. The eyes have it. How

safe is laser surgery? More than 100,000 have it done every year in

the UK. MP said the treatment should be that `` better regulated. There

are definite risks involved. Some estimate that between one in 20

patients experienced problems. It includes dry eyes, blurred vision,

Claire. From eyes displays, the revelations of GCHQ and the

controversial mass surveillance programme. There is anger in the

House of Lords. Wholesale, untargeted state intrusion into the

habit lives of all the people is unacceptable. Recent events have

shown that the intelligence and Security committee has currently

constituted is not really effective. Which minister authorised the

project? Can I assure him that secret does not mean unaccountable.

We have a system where any intrusion of the sort that the Lord prefers to

have to be necessary, proportionate and carefully targeted. You are

watching the week in Parliament.