PART 5: SUMMARY OF GENERAL
EVIDENCE ON THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND THE COMMITTEE'S CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
PUBLIC
SERVICE ETHOS
247. The second of the
two key questions on which the Committee (in its Second Special
Report) invited evidence was "is there a distinctive public
service ethos; and if so what function does it serve, and where
does it reside?".
What is the Public
Service Ethos?
248. The Committee has
seen many attempts to define the public service ethos. The 1994
White Paper on the Civil Service stated "The Government,
like its predecessors, is wholeheartedly committed to sustaining
the key principles on which the British Civil Service is based:
integrity, political impartiality, objectivity, selection and
promotion on merit and accountability through Ministers to Parliament.
These are as important to good government in the future as they
have been in the past."
249. In written evidence
(Special Report, p 2) Lord Armstrong of Ilminster said that the
public service ethos was "a portmanteau phrase which connotes
not only the sense of and pride in serving the public and the
public interest but also the qualities of integrity, of dispassionateness,
of freedom from corruption, which have characterised and I believe
continue to characterise our public services in this country".
He added that it was "a surprisingly hardy plant, but not
indestructible. For those who are in charge of the public services,
it is not enough to pay lip service to the public service ethos
or to take it for granted as something that will survive anything
that is thrown at it. Those who seek to reform the public services
and the way in which they are conducted and managed need constantly
to have regard to the actual or potential effects of the reforms
they have in mind upon the public service ethos and upon the commitment
of public servants to all that it stands for. ...I can assure
the Committee, from direct and personal experience, that it is
real, that this public servant, like (I know) very many others,
found the sense of public service and the principles and traditions
summed up in the phrase 'public service ethos' to be a guiding
and sustaining force and influence in a working life which had
its share of stresses and frustrations, as well as its share of
satisfactions and achievements".
250. Sir Brian Barder
(Special Report, p 215) summarised the following key elements
in the public service ethos: "motivation primarily non-financial;
subordination of private to Ministerial opinions; party political
neutrality, demonstrably permitting an official to serve any Government;
ability to see both sides of an argument but to make choices;
loyalty to both the Minister and the public interest, even where
these are irreconcilable; willingness to offer frank and if need
be unwelcome advice without regard to personal consequences; acceptance
that however high he is promoted, the official will remain the
servant and the political chief his master; abstention from the
use of official position or information for private gain; rigorous
and demonstrable propriety in the conduct of official business;
resistance to the temptations to cut corners, make generous gestures,
relax discipline, take risks or experiment or innovate except
within clearly authorised Ministerial policy; acceptance of obligations
of confidentiality, security, and often anonymity."
251. In oral evidence
Sir William Reid (Q 593) identified five elements in the public
service ethos: "first, a recognition that employment in the
public service carries with it an understanding that it is a service
and not just a job. ... Secondly, I think there is an expectation
that those who take decisions which will affect the public will
be guided by a fair and a reasonably full consideration of the
likely effects of those decisions and not just by dogma or hunch.
... Thirdly, for those who are in the public service I think there
should be an understanding that it is an essential, not just an
option, to inform Ministers of unpalatable or unwelcome consequences
of their intended decisions. ... Fourth, I think to pay due regard
to fairness and equity and to the effects on individuals as well
as other classes of citizen of the actions or inactions that are
planned. ... Then finally to abstain from the kinds of behaviour
which are categorised as maladministration."
252. Dr Barberis argued
(Special Report, p 213) that a healthy and vibrant public service
ethos could not be sustained "simply by rules and procedures,
checks and balances. The debacle exposed by the Scott Report had
its roots both in cultural atrophy and procedural weaknesses.
No one seemed able or willing to say, as Sir Warren Fisher reputedly
encouraged Civil Servants to say when necessary to their Ministers:
"That is a damned swindle, sir, and you can't do it".
Or, if it was said, there existed no procedure by which the sentiment
could be mobilised to curb what became an unsavoury and squalid
episode at the heart of Whitehall. That certain Government Ministers
and some of their supporters continue publicly to deny that it
was an unsavoury episode strengthens rather than weakens the argument.
Failure to recognise when the rules have been broken is itself
a manifestation of the decomposition of the public service ethos."
253. Ms Ann Chant said
(Q 500) that on the basis of thirty years' experience in the Civil
Service, she did not think the changes which had taken place had
had an adverse effect on the public service ethos, including loyalty
and dedication and a sense of commitment to the Crown or the State.
"The basic core standards remain. It is always difficult
to actually pin down what an ethos is, I find, but the consensus
seems to be that what we are talking about is impartiality, applying
the law without fear or favour, an absence of nepotism-particularly
in recruitment-and objectivity. Those are the core values of the
civil servant. Nothing I have seen has weakened those at all".
254. Sir Christopher
Foster and Mr Francis Plowden in their written evidence (Special
Report, p 17) expanded on the third of the elements identified
by Sir William Reid by referring to "the erosion of the Haldane
principle of Ministerial-Civil Service partnership which used
to be the keystone of their relations. The report of the Haldane
Committee on the Machinery of Government in 1918 set out that
the idea was central to the British philosophy of administration
that relations between Ministers and officials were not bound
by laws or bureaucratic rules, but by the convention that Ministers
would take decisions, see deputations and in general conduct their
business with officials present, so that they could be advised
what was lawful, what proper, what evidence and precedents were
relevant, what interests might reasonably expect to be consulted,
as well as what words in [parliamentary questions], letters and
speeches were misleading. ... Not only did this relationship help
make the quality of decision making better. It was also more helpful
in ensuring propriety and probity than any [Questions of Procedure
for Ministers] however long, any ethics commission or Nolan-style
commissioner. In very recent years, the distancing of Ministers
from Civil Servants, the taking of more decisions by Ministers
on their own or with external advice, has undermined these safeguards
of the public ethos." They also noted that, with the expansion
of private interests in the provision of public services and with
the intensification of party politics, the public service ethos
can be seen as a convenient term to describe those influences
on Government which are neither purely private nor purely political
in their motivation.
255. Sir Robin Butler
confirmed (Q 2133) that "there is a wider range of sources
of advice available to the Prime Minister in No.10, both political
and Civil Service. In my view and experience the cream rises to
the top. The Prime Minister, who is always, as it were, in need
of good advice, will draw it from the best people and that is
a thoroughly good thing whether they are political or Civil Servants".
Sir Robin explained (Q 2142) that special advisers were paid out
of Government funds. They were subject to most of the Civil Service
rules except the rule that requires political impartiality.
256. Asked (Q 2140)
whether recent portrayals of the new Government had not shown
special advisers playing too great a role in the making of policy,
Sir Robin explained the position thus: "You have in opposition,
Opposition spokesmen working with a very small group of advisers
with whom they are intimately bound. They come into Government
and that intimacy is not broken, it is maintained. Indeed, they
have just been through a campaign together, they have won a great
victory and they naturally feel very close to each other. The
Minister does not know the Civil Servants from Adam and so part
of the transition will be the building up of the confidence that
already exists between the Minister and the special advisers,
between the Minister and the Civil Servants. You cannot do that
overnight. It takes a little time to do so. That is perfectly
understandable and natural".
257. Professor Hennessy
(Q 1915), referring to the 1980s and 1990s, said "it would
not be for me to put an over-rosy tint on the political class
of old, but they really did change in my period as a working journalist
from it being a rare event when one would cut a corner and act
in a partisan or crude way or misuse patronage within or without,
to it becoming relatively commonplace. I am not talking about
sleaze here, I am talking about even things like setting up committees
of enquiry or Royal Commissions, and the degree to which the outcome
was almost predicted by the terms of reference and the people.
These factors are very hard to pin down, but they have to do with
the decency of the state, the old central state... the high minded
state".
258. Sir Robin Butler
gave the Committee some reassurance about the traditional values
of the Civil Service (Q 2113). "The Civil Service has not
had such a monopoly of providing advice to Ministers. Ministers
have gone much more widely for advice. I do not think that is
a bad thing at all". He added (Q 2114) "I have seen
my job, while I have been in this post, as not promoting efficiency
at the cost of the traditional qualities of the Civil Service
of integrity, political impartiality, objectivity, selection and
promotion on merit, and accountability of Ministers through Parliament.
I have not been doing it at the cost of those. What I have been
trying to do is to keep these two horses together. I do not see
why you cannot. That has been my whole objective: to try to retain
those traditional qualities but improve the management and the
efficiency of the Civil Service".
259. A more practical
illustration of the importance of the public service ethos was
given by Mr Jim Hanson of the CPSA (Q 807) in relation to the
establishment of the Child Support Agency: "It was felt when
that was set up in 1993/94 it was going to be on the basis of
something that was established without any reference to Civil
Service values or anything that had gone on in the past. They
brought in a chief executive from outside the Civil Service and
they very much saw themselves as a new departure that was not
going to be hampered by any of the baggage the Civil Service had
with it. I think the record of the first 18 months of that agency
was something of a disaster. The only way they were able to turn
that around was to bring in the Chief Executive of the Contributions
Agency ... and bring back some more traditional Civil Service
values and I think that has worked .... I think one of the values
that perhaps the Civil Service has, which is neglected in terms
of its benefits, is that administrative thoroughness and I think
that is something that perhaps has been neglected in terms of
looking at short-term savings of finance".
Where does it
Reside?
260. The Committee's
original question had two parts. The second part asked "Where
does the public service ethos reside?" The thought behind
it was whether it was possible for it to survive when public services
were performed in agencies, or by non-departmental public bodies,
or even by private contractors. Public services in the private
sector are dealt with in paragraphs 274ff. In relation to the
question whether the public service ethos survives in non-departmental
public bodies, Professor McLean and Mr Clifford of Nuffield College
drew attention (Special Report, pp 85-86) to the fact that until
1997 there was no equivalent of the Civil Service Management Code
to bind non-departmental public bodies together. Further, they
pointed out that "There has been no serious study of any
ethos that may exist within NDPBs".
261. Nevertheless, Mr
Turnbull told the Committee (Q 2213) that despite the fact that
NDPBs were not part of the Civil Service, "They have much
of the same sort of ethos as the public service. Something like
English Nature is a public sector body, it aspires to impartiality,
objectivity and so on. I would say their technical status differs
more than the ethos to which they are working. If you go into
a room full of Housing Corporation people you will basically find
yourself with like-minded people".
262. The Committee notes
that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has recently been
gathering information on openness and accountability in non-departmental
public bodies.
Is the Public
Service Ethos Alive and Well?
263. The Committee received
much evidence that the characteristic virtues of the public service
ethos were still to be found in abundance in the British Civil
Service. Lord Moore of Wolvercote (Special Report, p 264) wrote
that there was little doubt that Britain has the best public service
in the world. "Intellectually first class, they are able,
efficient and impartial and their integrity is unquestioned. Wherever
I have been abroad, I have heard nothing but admiration for our
Civil Service." Lord Kennet (Special Report, p 259) wrote
that "The internal and external consistency of our state
has been secured for the last century and a half by a highly developed
Civil Service."
264. Mr Keith Burgess
said of the Civil Service (QQ 680 and 681) "We know throughout
the world that we are dealing with very, very high standards in
the United Kingdom, that is, high standards in terms of the people
we are dealing with and high standards in terms of the way that
the business in being executed". He confirmed that this meant
intellectual robustness, a strong ethos and an absence of corruption
not found in other parts of the world.
265. The first report
of the Committee on Standards in Public Life stated: "We
believe that standards of behaviour in the Civil Service as a
whole remain very high, and that cases of outright corruption
and fraud are rare... Nor have we received evidence that other
important standards-political impartiality or the ideal of public
service-are under systematic threat". In giving evidence
to this Committee, Lord Nolan confirmed (Q 1797) that that
remained his view. Sir Robin Butler cited (Q 2120) the way that
the Civil Service coped with the recent change of Government as
evidence that the Civil Service was free from political bias.
Dr Clark supported this view, saying (Q 1840) "the political
impartiality of our Civil Service is maintained... we, as a Government,
have been more than delighted by the experiences which we have
felt over the past six months".
266. However, Professor
Bogdanor drew the Committee's attention (Special Report, p 36)
to the 1994 report of the Oughton Committee on Career Management
and Succession Planning which concluded, after a questionnaire
survey of Senior Civil Servants that there was "a belief
that the public service ethos is being eroded. This negative image
was significantly stronger than any other and must be of concern
for those responsible for the management of the service".
267. Sir Peter Carey
stressed the need to take care to preserve the public service
ethos. "We need to maintain our record of avoiding the corruption
which bedevils some other countries' services; and we need to
preserve the ability to tender neutral, objective advice on a
confidential basis. If Public Servants come to feel that their
advance depends on trimming, we are on the road to overt politicisation,
the case for which has not up to now been made" (Special
Report, p 225).
The Effect of
Structural Change on the Public Service Ethos
268. The Committee asked
various witnesses whether the introduction of agencies, or the
farming out of public services to NDPBs or private companies had
threatened the public service ethos. On the whole, witnesses felt
that no irreparable damage had been done, but that the public
service ethos should not be taken for granted but should be nurtured
and protected. Sir Robin Butler said (Q 2119) "If you put
a lot of emphasis on results, there is a danger that people will
cut corners. You have to be very careful to see that they do not;
and that they preserve the essential equity of treatment which
is a necessary hallmark of Government and the Civil Service. ...I
cannot say for certain to you that I am absolutely sure that there
is never going to be any damage to the ethos of the Civil Service
as a result of these changes because they take a very long time.
All I can say is that our objective has been to preserve those
aspects of the ethos and we have worked very hard".
269. Mr Alan Churchyard
of the CPSA was asked whether the creation of executive agencies
and the delegation to them of responsibility for pay and conditions
had had a direct effect on the morale of his members. He responded
(Q 799) that "the simple creation of agencies where previously
there was one department, in my judgement, has not led to any
significant effect on morale. I would say that was morale neutral".
270. Mr Turnbull was
asked whether within the Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, there was any difference between the ethos in
the agencies and the ethos in the core department. He replied
(Q 2181), "In the really fundamental things, no." Mr
Turnbull was also asked whether any differences in ethos had been
evident when the Departments of Transport and the Environment
merged. He replied (Q 2160), "In terms of ethos, things that
matter like the Civil Service values, no difference at all. Those
qualities set out in the Civil Service Code, you would not find
any difference in".
271. Lord Mackay of
Ardbrecknish, then Minister of State for Social Security, was
asked (Q 907) if the Civil Service ethos in the Department of
Social Security had been affected by the creation of executive
agencies, and said "Maybe I should not say it to you, but
I am a little puzzled as to what is exactly the Civil Service
ethos out in the Benefits Office in Truro or in Wick, or wherever
it is. The people there do a good job. They do understand loyalty
to their employer in much the same way as their brothers and sisters
do if they work for the local law firm or the local bank or whoever
it is. It is at the centre, where people are near to the policy-making
edge, where there is a significant difference in the Civil Service.
They do have a different ethos than you might get in other organisations:
they do have a loyalty to the Government and an appreciation of
their responsibilities to the public purse... I certainly have
no evidence that leads me to believe that anything has been damaged
there by the creation of agencies".
272. Despite this general
confidence that the public service ethos had not been damaged,
the need to protect and preserve it was underlined. Mr David Faulkner
argued (Evidence volume, p 220) that the unity of the Civil Service
and the security of tenure associated with it, should not lightly
be abandoned "but it is neither practicable or desirable
to retain, or seek to restore, those features in the forms or
through the mechanisms-such as conditions of service and structures
for pay and grading-which were familiar in the past". Given
the recent structural changes in the Civil Service it "becomes
all the more important to make sure that the characteristics and
values which unity and security of tenure were designed to protect-integrity,
impartiality, a sense of equity and a commitment to the public
interest and to constitutional behaviour-are secured by other
means".
273. Lord Nolan told
the Committee that he had not perceived any strong indications
that the ethos of the Civil Service had been affected by the changes
which had taken place (Q 1813): nonetheless, he sounded a note
of warning. He took the view that the primary consideration in
the creation of agencies had been the quest for efficiency; and
(Q 1808) that the "price of creating greater efficiency to
my mind is too high if in doing so you will destroy the degree
of security you do need ... there is something of a conflict between
efficiency of the commercial kind and the Civil Service ethos".
Public Services
in the Private Sector
274. The Prison Service
Agency has some prisons run by the private sector. Its Director
General, Mr Richard Tilt, was asked (Q 1520) whether a public
ethos existed which was not shared by the private sector. He said
"No, I would not draw that distinction. One of the things
which you do see with the private sector establishments is that
they have recruited a completely new staff usually, therefore
some of the older attitudes are not present in some of the private
sector establishments. However, I would not draw a distinction
between ethos and commitment. I find a good commitment in private
sector establishments to the principles, the goals and the values
of the main Prison Service. We require them to be run to the same
policies, the same standards, the same rules, and we specify quite
clearly what sort of regime we want and what they must deliver
on a daily basis." He added in his supplementary written
evidence (Evidence volume, p 102) that the Prison Service's Statement
of Purpose, Vision, Goals and Values was adopted by the management
and staff of both public and private sector prisons. "The
value of integrity includes exercising effective stewardship of
public money and assets. For the private sector there is in addition
the obligation to produce a return for the shareholder. So far
there is no evidence that these two objectives are inconsistent."
275. Mr Tilt summed
up the impact of the introduction of private prisons, saying (Q
1497) "my experience is that it has worked extremely well.
There are no problems with security in the private sector establishments;
their performance is as good as the public sector. In fact, on
all the things we measure their performance is, broadly, as good
as our better establishments. Of course, they are delivering our
service at lower cost, which is an advantage for us." He
said (Q 1499) that the latest comparative study suggested "that
they are somewhere between 11 and 17 per cent cheaper than the
comparative public sector ones. We know why that is: it is, largely,
because they are paying lower wages to staff and providing poorer
conditions in terms of pensions and holidays and so on."
He added (Evidence volume, p 102) that not all staff were paid
less than their counterparts in the public sector prisons, and
that he expected the gap between the costs of the two types of
establishments to narrow as a result of efficiency targets already
set for publicly managed prisons.
276. The Prison Officers'
Association, on the other hand, was fundamentally opposed to private
prisons. Mr David Evans said (Q 1717) "the ethical dimension
is that if the state is responsible for law and order then they
should in fact be responsible for the incarceration of prisoners
as well. There should not be any commercial dimension in that
kind of strategy. A lot of us believe that the work should be
undertaken not just by POA members but by Civil Servants working
on behalf of the state and indeed society itself". He added
(Q 1734) that the existence of private prisons had had a detrimental
effect on the unity and ethos of the prison service.
277. Lord Mackay of
Ardbrecknish was asked (Q 882) whether, if a public service function
was contracted out to the private sector, confidentiality and
accountability could be maintained and preserved in the way they
traditionally had been in the public service. He explained "I
think you can because you simply put that into the contract with
whoever is doing work for you, whether it be computer work or
anything else. As long as you have made a firm enough contract
I believe all these things can be delivered to you. I do not particularly
have any worries about things like confidentiality because out
there the banks, building societies, lots of other private companies
who have always been in the private sector, run confidential information
systems. By and large we trust them and by and large they come
up to the standard we expect of them".
278. Dame Ann Bowtell
explained how (Q 431) the DSS handled contracts with the private
sector. "I think this depends entirely on what kind of contract
you write with the private sector. What is absolutely critically
important in these is the specification you give to the private
sector, and what incentives you build in for them to behave in
the way you want them to behave. ... When you are looking at outsourcing,
you really are not just saying, 'Who will offer us the lowest
bid for doing this job?', you are actually going through in great
detail specifying what you want, trying to find the sort of company
which will do the kind of thing you want. We go into great detail
about all aspects of the company because what you are buying in
a way is a particular company which will behave in a particular
way, since you cannot write down every last line of every single
thing they do. But it is the contract and the contract specification
and the monitoring of that contract which is all important. If
you get that right, you can get them to do what you want".
279. Andersen Consulting
has a PFI contract with the DSS to replace the Contributions Agency's
central National Insurance Recording System with a new computerised
model which will carry over 65 million personal records (Special
Report, p 157). Andersen Consulting will develop and install the
system and run it (with security-cleared staff) until 2004. Under
PFI the risk as well as the responsibility for the delivery of
the contract passes to the private sector. Mr Keith Burgess was
asked (QQ 676 to 678) if Ministers had the right to change the
way things were done under the contract. He said "the dilemma
is clear. If we are taking financial risk and financial responsibility,
at what point do we have the sole decision about the way something
is going to get executed? Or how much does it belong outside
that area for somebody who does not have the financial risk, or
is not under contractual obligations to deliver a service? ...it
becomes an interesting issue about PFIs where we are trying to
transfer risk, what decisions are you going to take and what decisions
are you not going to take? This is partly the reason why it takes
so long to finalise any private finance initiative".
280. On the other hand,
the Council of Civil Service Unions drew attention (Special Report,
p 245) to the importance of confidentiality as a component of
the public service ethos: "Many functions in the field of
defence and foreign policy, and law and order are highly sensitive
for reasons of national security or political sensitivity. Where
policies are being developed, and in some cases where they are
being enacted, there is a need for a high degree of confidentiality.
That can only take place where there is a very close relationship
between Ministers and their advisers who understand the implications
of policy options and the public interest factor. This close relationship
with Civil Servants imbued with the value of the Service, a strong
sense of loyalty and bound by the Code of Conduct, could not be
maintained easily with a private sector organisation".
Morale
281. The Committee has
received much evidence that the morale of the Civil Service is
at present low. Mr Alan Churchyard, whose trade union (the CPSA)
comprised about 120,000 members, listed several contributory factors
(Q 800): "If we encompass the totality of issues such as
competing for quality and all the initiatives that flow from that,
privatisation, market testing, the general slimming down of the
Civil Service ... there is no doubt that Civil Service morale
is at an historically low level and a major aspect of that perception
is to do with perceived job security and uncertainties about the
future".
282. Asked to elaborate
on job security (QQ 825 and 826), Mr Churchyard said, "I
think the most important fact is that the Civil Service is contracting
and that has obvious implications for job security. There are
other specific policies which the Government has been following
for a number of years which also impact in this area. In particular
the competing for quality initiative and market testing, which
essentially is a process whereby units of Civil Servants, they
could be small units or quite large units, in effect compete to
keep their own jobs against bidders from the private sector. It
is a kind of competition ... and clearly that is an unsettling
process which carries with it a considerable amount of stress
and fears about people's futures. There is then privatisation
... and direct contracting out of work which is a variant on the
same theme. All these things taken together in the context of
a contracting service (and there is plenty of evidence of that)
clearly do make people feel insecure and uncertain about the future".
283. Professor Hennessy,
asked (Q 1951) about morale in the middle and lower grades of
the Civil Service, said "I think pay has a lot to do with
it. They got very cross with this new Government ruling out any
pay rises for them, and that is understandable because the pay
is not wonderful".
284. Another problem
which witnesses identified was the attitude of Ministers to their
Civil Servants. Lord Moore of Wolvercote (Special Report, p 264)
stated "considerable damage has been done by successive
Governments in allowing, even encouraging, the Civil Service to
be denigrated by the public at large." Lord Beloff wrote
(Special Report, p 223) "What is most important for the ethos
of the public service is ... the belief that its work is both
successful and appreciated." Sir William Reid also said (Q
548) "I certainly do not think it improves the morale of
Civil Servants if they are constantly criticised by their political
masters."
285. Professor Hennessy
said (QQ 1951, 1952) that a lack of esteem, as well as the tendency
to blame Civil Servants when anything went wrong, affected the
morale of the public service. He said that the degree to which
parodied views of the public service prevailed was depressing.
"I think the main problem was the disdain of many Ministers,
although not all, in the 1980s. That is absolutely the single
greatest problem. Ian Bancroft's wonderful lecture when he said
'the routine words of praise delivered through gritted teeth deceive
nobody' deserves re-reading".
286. Dr Barberis wrote
(Special Report, p 212): "No doubt the likes of Sir Warren
Fisher and Sir Edward Bridges were able to express and to uphold
within Whitehall a more strenuous public service ethic. They were
working with the grain. Today it is more difficult to hold the
line, especially when certain Ministers launch thinly veiled assaults
upon much with which public servants of yesteryear were proud
to be associated-impartiality, detached analysis, the 'social
perspective' and the canons of broader public accountability.
The climate is undoubtably less propitious for a distinct public
service ethos".
287. Sir Robin Butler
said (Q 2094) that jobs in executive agencies had been made more
challenging and exciting, and that was good for morale. He broadly
agreed (Q 2095) that if Civil Servants could take managerial
decisions without interference from politicians, that was very
good for morale. "I am not saying that the picture of morale
is unalloyed because whenever you make changes, particularly when
you reduce staff numbers, you create uncertainty and that has
a bad effect on morale. You cannot have change on this scale without
also having some deleterious effect on morale. But I think the
end result is actually to raise the pride and performance and
the ability to deliver".
288. Dr Clark admitted
that (Q 1841) "there is a problem ... with morale in the
Civil Service. ...one of the challenges which I face...is how
we actually restore that morale". He went on to suggest that
one of the reasons why morale fell was that when workers were
transferred to an agency, they believed that that transfer was
only the first step towards privatisation (Q 1881). Dr Clark sought
to assure the Committee that he did not regard transfer to an
agency as any step towards privatisation. "The present Agencies
know they are part of the Civil Service, the people employed in
it are Civil Servants and it is our intention for them to remain
so" he said. However, he was unable to rule out the possibility
of further privatisation, saying (Q 1882), "I can not rule
out that there may not be a little operation here that it may
be better to hive off".
The Committee's
Conclusions
289. The evidence
we received testified to the high standards of efficiency, integrity,
impartiality and intellectual rigour which continue to characterise
the Civil Service. We pay tribute to the Civil Service for maintaining
these qualities so well. However, the evidence we received-and
which, indeed, the House of Commons Treasury and Civil Service
Committee received in connection with its 1994 Report on the Role
of the Civil Service-leaves us in no doubt not only of the great
importance of the Civil Service ethos, but also of its vulnerability.
290. Perhaps the
single most important factor leading to the preservation or alternatively
the erosion of the public service ethos is the esteem in which
it is held. Maintaining it can be demanding and often difficult.
If its value is doubted or if it is ignored, people are less likely
to be committed to upholding and preserving it. It needs to be
consciously fostered. We received evidence that Civil Servants
find a dignity of purpose in working for the public sector, but
also evidence that some Ministers have tended to regard the private
sector as having superior qualities. The extent to which many
of the changes in the public sector have involved transferring
work from it to the private sector will have reinforced the feeling
amongst Civil Servants that in relation to those areas of work
their political masters regarded their input as unnecessary or
inappropriate.
291. The attitude
of Ministers towards Civil Servants is crucially important. As
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster said (Special Report, p 2), "it
is not enough to pay lip service to the public service ethos or
to take it for granted as something that will survive anything
that is thrown at it". We believe that Ministers have a particular
responsibility to affirm the value of the public service ethos
in maintaining standards of conduct and service in the public
interest.
292. The Committee
attaches particular importance to the role of the Civil Service
in offering frank advice to Ministers. Sir William Reid said (Q
593) "for those who are in the public service there should
be an understanding that it is an essential, not just an option,
to inform Ministers of unpalatable or unwelcome consequences of
their intended decisions". Sir Brian Barder described it
(Special Report, p 215) as a "willingness to offer frank
and if need be unwelcome advice without regard to personal consequences".
It takes personal courage for a civil servant to perform this
important public duty; he or she can only be sustained in it by
colleagues who share the same strong public service ethos.
293. The importance
which the Committee attaches to this role lies behind the Committee's
concern at the evidence given by Sir Christopher Foster and Mr
Francis Plowden (Special Report, p 17) about the distancing of
Ministers from Civil Servants and the tendency of Ministers to
take more decisions on their own or with external advice. The
Committee considers that such tendencies are capable of undermining
the safeguards of the public service ethos.
294. Some of the
changes made in the structure of the Civil Service might also
reasonably be supposed to reduce the willingness of Civil Servants
to offer Ministers unwelcome advice. Senior Civil Servants employed
on personal contracts to meet specified measurable targets and
with performance related pay could, at the very least, be tempted
to look no wider than their responsibilities to deliver those
targets. The only yardstick may be seen as efficiency, and there
is a risk that such persons might feel that it would count against
their own personal and professional interests to draw Ministers'
attention to matters affecting the wider public interest which
might adversely affect their ability to meet their targets. A
public servant who is required to compete with the private sector
for the performance of his function can be forgiven for assuming
that Ministers do not see the public service ethos, including
the duty to proffer unwelcome or unpalatable advice, as important
to his tasks.
295. The Committee
welcomes the statement in the Ministerial Code (Cabinet Office,
July 1997, paragraph 56) that "Ministers have a duty to give
fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice
from Civil Servants". The consultation process is no less
important.
296. Difficult
though it is to define the public service ethos, there was a broad
measure of agreement among our witnesses about its constituent
elements. These include factors, such as the importance of an
esprit de corps, which go a good deal wider than any characteristics
one might reasonably expect to be mentioned in any Civil Service
code. It is these other factors which are likely to be particularly
vulnerable to the kinds of change in the public service which
have taken place over the last thirty years. The role of the Civil
Service is not governed by rules. Its advice on constitutional
propriety, for example, is often based on experience and tradition
as much as on law. The traditions and collective memory of the
senior grades in the Civil Service are therefore very important
and depend crucially on its unity, continuity and collegiality.
These, in the view of the Committee, could easily be damaged by
the structural division of the Civil Service if they were not
specifically and consciously safeguarded.
297. The role
of the Civil Service is so important that both ethos and morale
must be monitored carefully. This is no doubt the function in
the first place of senior managers within departments and ultimately,
for the Civil Service as a whole, the Permanent Secretaries and
the Head of the Civil Service. We believe that they have done
well to uphold the ethos of the service throughout a period of
considerable organisational turbulence.
298. At the Ministerial
level, the overall responsibility for protecting ethos and morale
lies in the first place with the Minister for the Civil Service
(i.e. the Prime Minister) and under him the Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster as Head of the Office of Public Service. But
we stress strongly that this should not be left solely for Ministers
with designated responsibility for the Civil Service. All Ministers
as guardians of the public service should bear the responsibility,
whatever departmental portfolio they hold, to uphold and sustain
the traditions and the ethos of an impartial, dedicated, non-political
Civil Service. In order to safeguard the future, this responsibility
should be spelled out in the Ministerial Code. Consideration should
also be given to including it expressly in the Civil Service Act.
|
