THE CIVIL SERVICE-3
Can anything be done about it?
C. H. SISSON
One must not expect too much • of an organisation which has to take cognisance of all the muddled business which pushes itself before the attention of a modern govern- ment. It might be better if its existence was not admitted at all, as an entity, and there were just several hundred thousands of peo- ple, split up into groups more or less usefully and certainly very variously employed. The conception of the existence of the Civil Service as a corporate entity produces a dull intoxication, merely on account of numbers, and it even gives rise to the illusion that there are people who control it. At the same time, curiously enough, it produces a conviction that 'the old doctrine of ministerial responsibility' is 'a myth', though that doc- trine has at least the merit of being part of an intelligible political system, and meaningful in a way that the conception of the responsibility of the bland officials who smile their way through successive changes of policy is not.
The recommendations put forward by the Fulton Committee were mostly pointed in the wrong direction—towards the melting of all classes into one, instead of the articulation of departmental and sub- departmental groups, and towards a con- ception of management detached from any intimate knowledge of the substance and purpose of particular pieces of work to be done. If there had to be a 'Civil Service Department'—and clearly it would not be practicable to pay so many people out of one purse without having some measure of co- ordination—it ought to have been established as a subordinate service depart- ment, leaving the major initiative and authority at various departmental points stretching out to the periphery. It is not self- evident that such a functionary as a Head of the Civil Service is wanted at all; he is the embodiment of a bogus unity. Of course there would be central questions to be settled, on which ministers would need some advice on a service-wide rather than on a departmental basis, but there is no reason why such questions should not be dealt with by a committee of Permanent Secretaries, with changing membership and, of course, changing chairmanship.
Within Departments, too, something ought to be done to diminish the overween- ing, and sometimes nefarious, influence of Permanent Secretaries. This is a more diffi- cult problem, but certainly not less urgent, for the harm which can be done by a bad Permanent Secretary is immense—something which can better be understood from below than from above. The key to this must be in the method of appointment, though the bad appointment can never be eliminated. It would be better, however, if such ap- pointments were not made without some fairly wide canvass of the candidate's departmental colleagues, such as may take place before the appointment of the chairman of a company's board. It might be better, too, if the major policy issues were discussed by a departmental board, again of fairly wide membership, before formal ad- vice was tendered to ministers. This would ensure that the advice had at least been tried in a circle of people who were not only generally knowledgeable about the background of the questions but about the people tendering the advice. The measure of internal openness which such a system would give would be at least some safeguard to a Minister and ensure that he was receiving something like the best Departmental ad- vice and not merely the flattery of a courtier whose chief skill was in scenting what his master wanted to hear, and speaking ac- cordingly. Combined with a system of can- vassing views about possible promotions, it could in time exercise a considerable influence on the efficiency of the system.
The most urgent and immediate need in Whitehall, however, is undoubtedly for some way of getting rid of a very large number of senior officials quickly and soon. There is simply a superfluity, which will take years to work off, and which is being treasured at the moment in the certainty that, if nothing much in the system is changed, a further reflation of the Service will take place and it will be possible to use all the old bodies and promote a stream of new ones. A system for getting rid of people has become the more desirable because the fashion of early promotion to senior posts, which has prevailed for some years and which clearly has something to be said for it, must in a service from which people can hardly retire before sixty litter the place with former bright young men whose charm has left them. The need mainly arises, however, simply from. the fact that there are too many cooks spoiling the broth, too many people meddling with the same things, too many layers through which advice goes without, necessarily, being improved. It is customary to represent the inflation of senior posts which regularly occurs in certain phases of government activity as merely marginal. But it is nothing of the kind. The distension is a form of organic disease which requires inter- mittent surgery.
Of course any radical change in the Civil Service must come from new ideas of government, not from Civil Service tinkering and techniques. The Civil Service is a subordinate institution and should always be treated as such. A much more rigorous analysis of function than has been customary for some years must take place, and Departments must be organised strictly to carry out those functions and not to 'think', an activity which, detached from performance, never got anyone anywhere, least of all a government. It is unfortunate that so many people in senior positions in the Service have never, before they reached their final eminence, had any experience of . management to speak of. The typical career of the bright administrator is in essay- writing—which is usually called policy-mak- ing—and secretarial work of one kind and another. The direction of the eyes has always been upwards, to see what will please, not downwards, to see what is going on in the expensive organisations which are supposed to be under their control. This can result in an appalling incapacity in people who are rather intelligent than otherwise. Desirable though some technical improvement in management certainly is, in certain areas, it is the development of sensitivity down as well as up the line which is the greatest managerial need in Whitehall.
It does not do to expect too much of reform, or perhaps to think too much of general reforms at all. There are a number of particular problems rather than a general one. Nothing is easy, and all one can hope for is the removal of some of the prejudices which make things more difficult than they need be. Perhaps the era of freer discussion foreseen by Sir William Armstrong will help to alleviate the prejudices. That depends on how free the discussion is and there are, as Sir William has pointed out, strict limits to that, though in the realm of Civil Service organisation they do not seem to be very serious ones. It is only the servants talking among themselves, about their own affairs, not about those of their masters, though to be sure radical action depends in the end on politicians. But the fact that Whitehall is parasitic—though many of the executive organisations embedded in the Service, and serving the public directly, have their own raison d'être—should not make discussion impossible, though too many talking para- sites would be a nuisance, one can see that. From that danger the desire to please, deeply institutionalised in the hierarchy of the Ser-• vice, should protect us. A greater danger is the promotion of pseudo-discussion, with the pattern of right-mindedness determined from the top. From that, according to what we are usually taught, the robust traditions of our country should save us. I am not so sure, for vast modern organisations of their very nature induce pressures with a strong resem- blance to those experienced, we understand, under the sway of the Czar of Muscovy.
It takes a long time for ideas to make their way in the world, and we must not complain too much• if those which are being pro- mulgated in Whitehall have a rather tatty look. It is the business of a democratic ad- ministration to pick up and diffuse ideas rather than to invent them, and too much novelty would hurt. But we should complain a little, because it is only in this way that cracks are opened through which hitherto un- acceptable ideas filter in. Complaint comes better from influential quarters outside,
and the source of much of what now passes for new in Whitehall is the academic thought of some years ago. But one of the dangers of leaving complaint entirely to outsiders is that they very rarely know enough to hit the mark exactly. Businessmen are aware of the pervasion of unfamiliar criteria, so that even where they see accountability they do not necessarily see what people are having to ac- count for. Academics are apt to inflame themselves about obsessive questions of economics or sociology, or to pursue the dogmatism of a technique beyond what is reasonable. These points• of view are valuable because of their lack of sympathy, but they supplement, and do not replace, criticism from within the Service itself, Admittedly the combination of one or two ideas with first-class practical experience must amount to something which is only just on the right side of insubordination.
This concludes a series of three articles on the Civil Service by Mr Sisson, Who is an Under-Secretary in the Department of Employment and author of The Spirit of British Administration.
Previous page
