A few years ago a government minister did a most eccentric thing. Rory Stewart, then prisons minister, announced he would resign if he failed to bring down violence in prisons. “He must be crazy,” several officials told me at the time. “Political suicide,” whispered a deputy. The idea that people in government should be judged on what they actually deliver was met with disbelief.
Amid all the heated discussion about whether Sue Gray should be allowed to work for Sir Keir Starmer, or whether Dominic Raab’s ousting as Justice Secretary was orchestrated by politically motivated civil servants, he should be remembered that a good government is produced by ministers and civil servants who know how to make things happen. I’m more interested in whether, when in charge of the Foreign Office, Raab and his team did enough to evacuate people from Afghanistan in August 2021 than whether his bizarre hand gestures constituted ” bullying”.
British state Rolls-Royce machines have been rusting for years. The civil service is always capable of impressive improvisation: the Homes for Ukraine and Covid leave programs have been quick and creative solutions to great challenges. But such achievements often happen in spite of the system, not because of it.
Some of the most effective managers I know think of themselves as a kind of guerrilla army, navigating around pointless consultations, disappointing IT and the “quangocracy” of independent bodies. They’re tired of pointless meetings, tick-off performance reviews, and an obsession with process at the expense of action.
The protracted Brexit saga, rotating governments and frequent leadership changes have taken their toll. But the Boris Johnson era, in particular, hangs over Whitehall like a sheet. The removal of cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill has done nothing to advance the often pointed criticism of Whitehall made by former Johnson chief adviser Dominic Cummings. This act of vandalism did not improve the system. Instead, it increased mistrust.
The replacement of Sedwill by the clever but inexperienced Simon Case suggested that Johnson and Cummings were just keen to go their own way. And the tone they set paved the way for Liz Truss to sack Permanent Treasury Secretary Sir Tom Scholar, who saw his economic plans ruined for what they were.
That doesn’t mean Sedwill or Scholar should have been untouchable. The manner in which they were sent has obscured the question of how the performance of these senior officials is judged. Maintaining the independence of the civil service is essential, but ministers are often surprised that they have to meekly accept the staff entrusted to them, when they are held accountable for the performance of their ministry.
Likewise, all the ministerial concerns about the civil service aired in recent years cannot be dismissed as part of a Brexiter vendetta against a remnant caste. Last year the Minister for Efficiency resigned, saying he could not defend the government’s ‘dismal’ record of handing out billions of pounds of Covid loans to fraudsters. Lord Theodore Agnew’s resignation speech was a groan of frustration that rang true for people of all political stripes.
Government responsibilities and public expectations have changed dramatically since 1854, when the Northcote-Trevelyan report created the professional civil service. But the system of governance has hardly changed. I often hear from ministers that officials lack a sense of urgency, and from officials that ministers are in too much of a rush to make their mark. But when both parties are generalists with little management training trying to solve extremely complicated problems, the mismatch in timelines can exacerbate tensions.
Relations tend to improve when ministers know how to get the best out of public servants. Bringing MPs into the cabinet on the basis of loyalty rather than ability, without any preparation, makes this process far too risky. Keeping ministers in office longer, as Tony Blair and David Cameron have done, improves the odds.
The Raab saga indicates that Whitehall has become more openly disrespectful. Although I am not a fan of the former justice secretary, I was troubled that the docket of complaints against him included some filed by officials he had never even met. But Gray has every right to work with Starmer, just as diplomat Ed Llewellyn did with Cameron. The real question is not her discretion – she is an accomplished professional – but whether she is up to it.
A revolution is needed. Rishi Sunak has launched sensible Whitehall reforms, such as teaching digital skills, evaluating major projects and reducing reliance on outside consultants. But politicians also need talent management and training.
Insiders lament that the current system is losing some of its brightest to McKinsey. These people enjoy the challenge of rigorous performance management, in ‘in place or not’ systems, as opposed to a job for life. Attracting talent the other way means hiring fewer, better people with higher salaries and lower pensions.
Repairing relations between ministers and officials will require a new cabinet secretary with real stature, preferably someone with outside experience. Because unless you have been outside, how can you judge if the system is up to it? Being impartial does not mean not caring about results. Stewart was reshuffled before he could meet his pledge on prisons. But at least he tried.
—————————————————-
Source link