4.
to those embodied in the published expenditure figures, and officials should avoid being drawn into discussion covering this sort of ground. In some cases Ministers may agree to proposals for new policies being offered by Departments for discussion with the Committee, and in such cases officials will, of course, have to be ready to give relevant evidence. But this - which is entirely at the Government's own choice - should be regarded as the limit of the Committees' role in policy formulation. If officials are asked questions in the field of political controversy, using the term in its widest sense, they should say that this is a matter for Ministers on which they cannot answer. It is recognised that the dividing line may often be difficult to draw, and in any case of doubt Departments will wish to consult Ministers before official witnesses give evidence."
It appears that the Committee's interest is in fact being pushed beyond the bounds of "existing policy" and you may wish to consider whether Mr Rowlands should be consulted about the attitude that Mr Hawley and his team should take to such questions. Members of Parliament (including Ministers) do not know of the existence of the Civil Service Department memorandum to officials and its content should not in detail be revealed to them. case you wish to consult Mr Rowlands in writing, I attach a draft minute explaining the position in more general terms.
In
5. Mr Sloman will be minuting to Mr Hawley on the procedures of the Committee, including the possibility of "side-lining" evidence on delicate subjects. in closed session.
The Committee will be meeting
Copies to:
Mr Hawley
Mr Sloman (PCCU)
Mr O'Keeffe (HKIOD) Mr Goodison (SED) Mr Thom (ASD)
FH Moberly
Fersonnel Policy Department