Last week I took part in a debate organised by the Institute for Government on our Civil Service. It was timely due to a recent discussion about the civil service and relations with some government ministers. I spent nine years in Government and always enjoyed good relations with the civil servants I worked with but, like all parts of our constitution, it works in a particular way, and you need to recognise that to get the best out of it.
Some countries have different systems. In the United States, there is an entirely new "Administration" when a new President is elected, and all the accumulated knowledge is lost, and an entirely new set of officials are brought in with the patronage of the President. Those in favour of such an approach believe that you get a Government machine more in tune with and committed to the policy agenda and less prone to the antics of Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister. However, the lack of permanence means there is no continuity, and specialist experience gets lost. It can take a long time to get people in place and there can be gaps in staffing for up to two years after a President gets elected. Under the British system, we can change Prime Minister, form a new Government and the Civil Service is there from the very start to make things happen. The whole process can be completed within a few days. It is, in my view, a better system.
However, like all eccentric British inventions, you need to know how to work the machine to get the best from it. If the permanency of the civil service is the main strength that can lead to accumulated technical knowledge, then that knowledge needs to be protected by keeping civil servants in the same policy area for long periods of time. In recent decades, there has been a tendency to move civil servants between different departments and policy areas, undermining the great strength of our system. A slowed down rate of this churn within the Civil Service would prevent this.
If the main weakness of a permanent civil service is they can sometimes struggle to adapt to the agenda of an incoming government, and that Ministers find themselves in an episode of "Yes Minister" being outmaneuvered by Sir Humphrey characters, the remedy is to get good Ministers in place and leave them there for as long as possible, for at least three years preferably five. Ministers can then form a bond of trust with civil servants and, if civil servants know they are likely to have the same Minister for a long time they won't try to put difficult policies in the slow lane or use delaying tactics. However, if they believe that a Minister will be gone within the year and replaced by someone else, no one is in place long enough to get anything done and the dynamic is very different.
During my time in Government, I found a tendency, unless there is a strong ministerial steer, for the civil service to give you a submission on a policy decision with usually three multiple-choice options. I preferred to ask questions and open my door to more junior officials, who actually had their sleeves rolled up doing the policy detail. With complex issues, you can save time and get better quality decision-making by opening up your door to junior ranks and asking questions and that was the culture I nurtured.
Some say that the civil service should be impartial, but I don't think that is quite the right word to describe it. It's not the BBC. During an election, civil servants draft plans based on what the main parties say in their manifestos, and, from the moment any political party wins a General Election, civil servants support that Government, providing the same service if there is a change in government. Civil servants set aside their own personal beliefs and views to serve the country by supporting the elected government of the day, be they right or wrong. It is a calling similar to the ethos that we see in our armed forces and such an ethos should be nurtured and valued.
