“We will put a limit on the number of special advisers.”
Coalition Agreement, 20 May 2010
The claim
The Government chose Tuesday, a day when the eyes of the world were fixed on the Murdochs’ appearance at Portcullis House, to give a virtually empty House of Commons an update on the apparently inexorable rise of the Special Adviser.
Members of this much-maligned political species are often described as spin doctors, but are officially defined as “temporary civil servants”.
Paid for by the taxpayer but exempt from the usual strict rules of impartiality, so-called “Spads” are regarded by ministers as indispensable confidants, researchers and unofficial press spokesmen.
The influence they wield can be gauged by the fact that a spell as a Spad has demonstrably become a fast-track to political power in recent years.
David Cameron, George Osborne, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls all worked as special advisers to Ministers before going on to take office themselves.
Nevertheless, the Tories let it be known while in opposition that Labour had let things get out of hand and they intended to curb the proliferation of the Spad if elected.
Last year’s Coalition Agreement made this an article of policy, with the new Con-Lib Government promising to put a cap on the numbers of political aides paid for by the public purse.
The analysis
As FactCheck pointed out shortly after the election, the new regime was as good as its word, although the new limit on Spads written into the ministerial code was hardly revolutionary.
The new rule stated that: “With the exception of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers may each appoint up to two special advisers (paid or unpaid).
“The Prime Minister may also authorise the appointment of one special adviser by Ministers who regularly attend Cabinet.”
That differed from the previous rule in two minor respects: Ministers who regularly attended Cabinet were only allowed one Spad instead of two, and the Deputy Prime Minister was exempt from the previous maximum of two advisers.
There was also an instant get-out clause that appeared to make easy allowance for exceptions: “All appointments, including exceptions to this rule, require the prior written approval of the Prime Minister.”
The figures that slipped out on Tuesday as the Murdochalypse was in full swing show that Mr Cameron has not quite reached the heights of Labour’s reliance on Spads.
In the last days of Gordon Brown’s rule, there were 78 special adviser posts. A month after David Cameron came to power, that fell to 68 posts, with five of them vacant.
Tuesday’s figures show that 74 Spads are now on the books, creeping close to the figure employed by Labour, although the total wage bill to the taxpayer has fallen significantly.
The Government says it paid out £4.5m to its Spads in the ten-and-a-half month period from 13 May 2010 to 31 March 2011, compared to £6.8m for the whole of the 2009/10 financial year.
Number 10 said £2.1m was spent on the aides in the transitional period from 1 April to 12 May last year, £1.8m of which was severance pay.
Nevertheless, Mr Cameron has increased the number of Spads who report to him from 18 to 20, and is spending an extra £200,000 on advisers.
Two of them, Craig Oliver and Andrew Cooper, earn more than Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg with salaries of £140,000 each.
Edward Llewellyn, the Number 10 chief of staff who made it into the headlines this week after it was revealed that he told Met Assistant Commissioner John Yates not to brief the Prime Minister about phone hacking, is on a respectable £125,000.
In June last year only a certain Andy Coulson earned the maximum salary, which is capped at £140,000 so a Spad cannot earn more than the Prime Minister’s salary of £142,500.
What about the limits placed on Cabinet members in the Ministerial Code?
Well, it seems the exception has become something of a rule now, as four Cabinet Ministers – Foreign Secretary William Hague, Chancellor George Osborne, Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox and the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde – have more than two Spads.
The verdict
Let’s be very clear: David Cameron employs slightly fewer special advisers than Gordon Brown, and spends significantly less on them, though this may be skewed by the number of posts that were vacant in the first few months of the Coalition.
There’s little evidence that average salaries for Spads have fallen on Mr Cameron’s watch, and we’ll have to wait for a full financial year with a full roster of Spads to provide a direct comparison with Gordon Brown’s spending.
We’re still going to award the Coalition a “fiction” rating for that all-important promise to halt the spread of the Spad, though.
It’s obvious from this week’s publication that the amendment to the Ministerial Code isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
Mr Cameron has chosen to break his own rule on hiring political aides repeatedly, and the code makes it clear that he is personally responsible for going back on his own promise to tighten up the rules.
By Patrick Worrall
