Michael Brown: Who will say to Mr Blair: 'No, Prime Minister'?

'Unless they identify with the government of the day, civil servants will find their promotion prospects limited'

"President Blair" moved a step closer to achieving his goal of a White House style of government last week with the revelation that the civil service post of principal private secretary to the prime minister is likely to be abolished when the present incumbent, Jeremy Heywood, leaves on sabbatical in the autumn. In addition, Mr Blair has stripped all nine of his private secretaries of their titles and renamed them policy advisers. This will mark the end of a 70-year era of civil service advice to the Prime Minister – to be replaced, in future, by political appointments.

Mr Blair's first term was marked by a doubling of the number of political special advisers across Whitehall and the politicisation of the Prime Minister's chief press spokesman, Alastair Campbell. There has, in addition, been a significant increase in temporary civil servants appointed for their political advice – such as Jonathan Powell who holds the title of "chief of staff".

Many constitutional purists are concerned that we are witnessing a fundamental change in the relationship between politicians and the independent civil service, whose impartial duty is to serve the government of the day regardless of its political hue. But should we be worried? Is it not reasonable for the elected government to be able to cut across the red tape of the mandarin mentality that gets in the way of delivery of manifesto commitments? Was not the biggest charge against the Labour Government, during the recent election campaign, the failure to deliver on its policies?

Recognising this criticism, Tony Blair went to great lengths to promise delivery, so surely he is entitled to have around him advisers with the clout to instruct the bureaucracy to deliver on his mandate in much the same way as the White House confidants of a president of the United States?

Well, yes and no. No one can object to an elected prime minister having around him – even at public expense – advisers whose job it is to present policy advice in tune with the promises made to the people. Anybody in the policy unit at No 10 must inevitably be committed to the contents of the Labour manifesto, and it is easy to understand prime ministerial frustration when civil servants, not necessarily committed to the politics of any particular programme, are incapable of working up policies and strategies designed to achieve the political objectives of the party in power.

Successive governments since the 1970s have found themselves hampered by the civil service and have understandably resorted to using the think tanks beyond Whitehall. They have then poached the best personnel from such bodies and elsewhere to work directly as special advisers because of their support and commitment to the prime minister. Harold Wilson began the alternative "Kitchen Cabinet" with the employment of Marcia Williams (later Lady Falkender) as chief gatekeeper, aided and abetted by Joe Haynes, his press secretary, and Gerald Kaufman, now a senior Labour MP.

Margaret Thatcher, however, kept up the facade of civil service appointments – although she trawled every corridor of the service until she found kindred spirits in the shape of her press spokesman, Bernard Ingham, and her private secretary, Charles Powell. However, both of them observed the traditional etiquette in the relationship between elected politician and technically neutral civil servant. Neither, for example, would soil his hands during a general election campaign or attend a party conference.

But where things are being changed, by Mr Blair's latest proposals, is in the blurring between career civil servants and political advisers to the point where there is no longer to be any clear separation between the two roles. And the crucial difference, in future, is that the political appointees will be able to give instructions to career civil servants.

What this inevitably means is that large swathes of appointees will be entirely dependent upon prime ministerial patronage for their power and their jobs and that any change in administration will mean that their heads will roll along with those of the politicians. Career civil servants will find that, unless they are able to identify strongly with the policy objectives of the government of the day, there are limits to promotion prospects. But they will also fall under suspicion as "one of them" by any incoming government and, even though they may be expert in their field, would not be trusted to implement an alternative policy.

Tam Dalyell, the Father of the House, is concerned that the traditional duty of civil servants – "to warn and, above all, to give unpalatable advice" – will be undermined if they know that their careers might be determined not by the honesty of their advice but by other considerations. Even during the 1980s, Mr Dalyell was concerned that career civil servants such as Charles Powell had an "unhealthy" relationship with Mrs Thatcher.

Mr Dalyell speaks for many in Parliament who share his misgivings at these developments, and he believes that the new House of Commons will be much less amenable to changes of this kind. And it is clear that, if Mr Blair is seeking to change the fundamental basis of cabinet government by imposing prime ministerial government, MPs will demand certain safeguards.

While outwardly a US president has greater freedom to exert his political influence throughout the administration, there is a quid pro quo – namely the right of Congress to ratify many of his public appointments, including all members of the cabinet. Hearings are held, with controversial appointments even being rescinded if there is a prospect of Congress voting against the president. It cannot be long before the House of Commons Public Administration Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr Tony Wright, takes a fresh look at this whole issue.

Hitherto, it has always been the accepted wisdom that policy is only made by the politicians who are collectively and individually accountable to Parliament. If it is to become a formal part of our constitution that there are to be civil servants, of a political nature, involved in implementing decisions, is there not a case for parliamentary approval by the select committees for such appointments? At the very least we should involve Parliament in the ratification of prime ministerial appointments – including ministers.

It always used to be the case, until the early part of the last century, that, upon appointment, a minister was required to resign his seat and submit himself, at a by-election, to the will of his constituents. Maybe this is taking accountability too far, but, at the very least, it ought to be right for the prime minister to ask Parliament, via the select committees, for its approval of ministerial and policy-adviser appointments. If there are no longer to be civil servants able to offer Mr Blair truly dispassionate advice without fearing for their promotion prospects, then Parliament should be given the right to say: "No, Prime Minister."

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk