As a long-serving minister I learnt just how much the civil service needs reform
Civil service reform – Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and Margaret Thatcher all considered it. In 2012, David Cameron’s Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition looked at radical ideas to bring Britain’s bureaucracy into line with other models around the world.
As with so many other proposed changes, the institutional resistance was enormous. Critics claimed that officials would be forced to promote ministerial plans, whatever their practical consequences. This is strange as the law requires civil servants “to carry out their duties for the assistance of the administration whatever its political complexion” and that they must act with “objectivity and impartiality”. Those who fundamentally disagree with the government are always free to resign.
Today, the civil service is back in the news headlines with Sue Gray, one of the most senior civil servants and trusted with the sensitive internal workings of a Conservative Government, jumping ship to work as the closest aide to the Labour Leader of the Opposition.
I have no reason to question the integrity of Sue Gray, but should she take up the position as his chief of staff, I fear the damage to the perception of civil service impartiality will be deep and long-lasting. This is profoundly sad for the many fantastic civil servants who are committed, hardworking and dedicated public servants, but ministers need to be able to rely on the advice of their civil servants and have frank conversations with them without worrying that they might run off the next day and take up a job with their opponents.
The current drama comes on top of the great political upheavals of Brexit and the pandemic. The internal dynamics of government and the civil service have been put under unprecedented strain. As Lord Sedwill wrote in 2019, when he headed the civil service: “Brexit polarises public opinion and civil servants are not immune from those pressures... I will continue to resist attempts to draw the civil service into the argument. These are political issues and they are for politicians to resolve.” Amen to that but it is not the experience many of us have had in practice.
Beyond impartiality, there are other issues that require a new approach to our civil service.
One is that of professional backgrounds and skills. When Theresa May asked me to establish the Department for International Trade, after the Brexit referendum, it was clear that we did not have the necessary skills to create an independent trade policy entirely from within the ranks of the British civil service. Luckily, we were able to draw on the skills and expertise of strategic partners such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They advised us, for example, on establishing our own trade remedies function. Yet, when we tried to extend the principle of sharing skills with the private sector, we were met with complete institutional resistance. Such an attitude means that the most senior advisers to ministers are the ones who have been the longest away from their own areas of expertise or the wealth-generating parts of the UK economy.
We also saw, in the pandemic, that the educational backgrounds in both politics and the civil service are far too narrow. As one Cabinet minister put it to me, “If it had been an economic crisis, we would have known which questions to ask.” Or, as a senior civil servant said, “We were all more qualified to talk about Rousseau than RNA.”
The historical dominance of arts, history and law degrees is ill-suited for an era where science and technology are key to shaping the world around us. While there is an urgent need for the political class to address this imbalance, we can do so more quickly within the civil service if we are able to bring more experts into office with each respective, elected government.
It would also help us address one of the weaknesses in our current political system, the lack of institutional memory. One of the key benefits of a civil service is to compensate for a rapid turnover in ministers and shorter tenures in Parliament by ensuring that lessons are learnt and mistakes are not repeated. Being able to bring in greater experience, in required areas, could bring added stability and wisdom to the system, especially at a time when a welcome diversity in civil-service recruitment is increasing the number of younger entrants.
We do not need a US-style model where the sheer number of political appointees can produce messy transitions between administrations, but there are plenty of other models. Canada, Australia and Germany have systems where, to varying degrees, there is political control over the top jobs. This hybrid approach could be a template for us.
The Conservatives should be radical with civil service reform in the next manifesto. This would provide a strong defence against any attempt by the House of Lords, populated as it is by many senior former civil servants, to frustrate the plans. We cannot allow sentimentality about the past or institutional inertia to stand in the way of reform. We must have all the tools we need for the challenges ahead.
The UK’s current model is no longer working. We need to look to other countries to see how the bureaucracy can function better
Being able to bring in greater experience, in required areas, could bring added stability and wisdom to the system