Written by Sir John Redwood
This article was first published in Sir John Redwood’s Diary and we re-publish this article with his kind permission.
~~~ *** ~~~
The theory is straightforward. Ministers decide on policies they wish to see implemented, or identify problems that need government solutions. Civil servants advise on the best ways of implementing a policy or solving a problem. Ministers decide between these options and civil servants get on, implement and administer the policy.
Civil servants can refuse to implement only if the Minister is wanting to do something illegal or contrary to the agreed view of the government. They are not meant to let their own personal preferences and political views get in the way of carrying out a governing party Manifesto or the agreed wishes of the Cabinet or of a Minister with devolved power.
It is further agreed that only Ministers speak to the public and Parliament to explain and defend the policies and actions of the government, with the exceptions that civil servants may be employed as spokesmen and women to put across the agreed government policy in off the record briefings or occasionally as nominated experts on the record. Ministers do not reveal what advice they were given and civil servants do not brief out their views on the advice and on how the Minister took the decision.
This system sometimes breaks down. Ministers can let fly about civil servants and civil servants can brief against Ministers. Throughout our period in the EU our membership of the EU has created a substantial tension between Ministers wanting to govern the country and a civil service keen to maximise the constraints the EU imposes on self government.
The civil service as a whole admires the EU and likes the behind closed doors approach to legislating in the Council. Ministers are often told they cannot carry out their promises or meet the wishes of many UK voters because to do so would violate some EU Directive or regulation or Treaty requirement. When I was a Minister and since then the civil service preferred method of dealing with the EU is to find out what it wants to do next and tell Ministers they should welcome it or go along with it.
The current rows between Ministers and officials are related to the wish of the majority of the public to “take back control”. The paradox is the civil service does not wish to do this, but has used every opportunity in the last three and half years to try to recreate many features of current EU governance once we have “left”. Instead of preparing us for the opportunities of exit they have run a Remain based Project Fear machine. We have seen the results in some published statements and reviews, and in leaks. Much of it is shoddy and alarmist, unrelated to the reality of what is likely to happen.
So we have the Home Office trying to dilute the borders policy to recreate free movement of people. We have the Treasury trying to bake Maastricht debt controls, the austerity policy, back into a domestic version. We have some in the Environment Department trying to perpetuate EU fishing and farming policies. We have some Defence and Foreign office officials wanting to bind the UK into common defence procurement and more common operations with EU forces to make a European army more feasible. We have Trade and FCO officials not wanting a US trade deal for fear of it annoying the EU. There are of course many able and good individual civil servants and some who do like Brexit, but overall the civil service wants to take no risks by the UK doing something the EU may not approve.
It is this culture of EU best and EU first that some good Ministers are trying to change. Expect more sparks to fly. I know which side I am on.
There seems to be a lot of THEM and US in the Ministries ! – THIS HAS TO BE STAMPED OUT, but Ministers must be more professional too !
My experience has been the Navy. – Private Company business. – Trade Union Shop Steward. – Hence my comment on the Minister’s ability !
A Navy Captain or Master has to do as The Admiralty or his Company demands, but he is the top man on board the ship. – For his orders to be possible in being carried out, he has to know what is possible, and indeed how it is carried out. – This comes from experience with his time served as a junior officer, doing the job. ….. Ministers are clearly at a disadvantage in this respect !
As an employer in a new business, I had to choose my staff wisely, and listen to advice that they had gleaned by their work experience. – Doing this worked very well and my Company expanded successfully over twenty years, until I had to closed it. ….. The mutual exchange of ideas is almost certain not to be possible with Civil Servants and Ministers, due to one wanting, but the other not wanting the change !
Due to my lack of promotion in a multi National Company, I was preparing to find other employment, when my workmates surprised me in asking me to be their Shop Steward. – I had never thought of doing that job and agreed eventually, due to a lack of job opportunities at the time. – I stayed for over ten years ! – Company Law and Employment Law I knew, and a study of this Company’s contracts gave me a considerable edge over the Managers and Directors, who eventually bought my contract ! ….. A Minister must know what he wants, and the direction he intends to achieve it. – This involves general ability, with considerable fast study. – A Senior Civil Servant is not immovable, and can be moved upon refusal of an order, or incompetence in activation. – I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS FACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS USED !
You look like a Serious candidate for adviser on incorporating Union and other stakeholders support into political enterprises to change our industries and business that can successfully Harness the Creativity, Risk, drive and Adventure etc of the entrepreneur, with the money and participation of old fashioned bankers and investors,, and the Loyalty, acceptance, and skills, willingness, participation, respect and ( yes, occasionally , against their better judgement, ), obediance, of all employees,
This is the old idea of stakeholders which is still valid in companies up to about 2000 employees where the boss knows everybody. Over this number other actors and factors come into play and different skills come into play Not many people understand these factors or skills, never mind acquiring them. But That’s a whole separate barrel of worms, as I feel that this (1 to 2000 +or- ) is in the main the worlds saving future.
Some believe that computers fill the gap. Pratts.
Some politically motivated souls believe just saying’ Union must ave a member on the board’ will do. No it won’t.
For many years some politicians and most Mandarins and Mrs May , have believed that turning Britain into a country of Professions and professionals was luvly. I disagree and so should UKIP. At least I think so. I don’t suppose its ‘popular,’ But giddy popularity is not the purpose.( Except for politicians that is )
But since Ukip nec has managed to lose all trace of VETS , Fishing, popularity, and everything else ??
And that’s it in a nutshell.
The Civil Servants are there to implement the policies chosen by the electorate through their voting a particular party into government. Any who deliberately obstruct those policies should be deemed in breach of contract and sacked. It would be good if that were accompanied by loss of pension to focus their minds…
“Civil servants can refuse to implement only if the Minister is wanting to do something illegal…”
Wasn’t joining the Common Market illegal?
I am seriously amused at Boris producing Civil servants in all their titles and glory to help him fight Coronavirus. They Gloried in it and will now be supporters of brexit…. I hope it doesn’t go wrong for them..