Civil Service
Why It Matters
The civil service is likely to be the part of government with which citizens have most contact. The civil service is empowered to take actions which may directly impact on the lives of citizens, both in financial terms and in terms of enjoyment of individual liberties. Accordingly the decisions made as to who may serve in the civil service, the systems of accountability and the question of who, ultimately, takes responsibility for the actions of the civil service are of critical importance to citizens.
The Essentials
1.
The role of the Civil Service is to support the government of the day in the development and delivery of its policies.
2.
The duty of Civil Servants is to serve their Minister; they remain anonymous and politically impartial. Ministers alone are responsible to Parliament, and are accountable for all decisions made by their departments.
3.
As at March 2012, there were 453,000 Civil Servants on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis.
The Important Debates
To what extent are civil servants still anonymous, neutral and permanent?
The introduction of executive agencies headed by senior civil servants as a primary vehicle for the implementation of policy has arguably changed the work and the culture of the civil service. There has been an increased public identification of key civil servants in relation to their impact on policy. The Cabinet Secretary has, in particular, become the subject of considerable interest.
Should civil servants be shielded by Individual Ministerial Responsibility?
Some argue that civil servants should be more accountable for their own decisions. Suggested reforms include;
- The appointment of senior civil servants by democratically elected politicians
- A more open recruitment process at the higher levels of government
- The abolition of Individual Ministerial responsibility in relation to officials, and its replacement with personal responsibility for the construction and implementation of policy.
Are quangos sufficiently accountable? Are there some functions or powers that ought only to be held by those democratically elected?
A quango (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation) was defined by the government in 1997 as;
“a body which has a role in the processes of national government, but is not a government department, or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm’s length from Ministers.”
This includes not only non-departmental public bodies but also executive agencies (such as JobCentre Plus), taking their number to over 1000.
The Public Bodies Bill 2010-12 was introduced to abolish, merge or transfer the powers of a large number of quangos following a government review of their functions. This process of reform was strongly criticised by the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) in their 2011 Report; Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State.
Principal arguments raised for and against quangos include:
For
- Quangos allow decisions about certain issues to be taken with minimal interference from party politics
- Quangos provide a useful service to government: experts can be more appropriate decision-makers on some policy issues
- Quangos can reduce the workload of other executive bodies
Against
- Quangos allow politicians to avoid responsibility for controversial issues
- Quangos are not democratic: there is often little effective scrutiny of appointments to quangos or of the quango’s work
- Quangos are an unacceptable source of patronage
- Quangos are costly; there may be duplication of functions. They constitute an extra, unnecessary level of government.
1854
Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan Report on the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service
1918
The Haldane Report called for rationalisation of departmental responsibilities
1919
The Bradbury Report resulted in a new Establishments branch of the Treasury being introduced to oversee Civil Service organisation and pay
1961
The Plowden Report argued the need for the Civil Service to professionalize its management systems and behaviour
1968
The Fulton Report introduced managerial and efficiency reforms.
1970
Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS) set up
1974
Number 10 Policy Unit set up to support the Prime Minister
1974
Guidelines on Special Advisers issued by Harold Wilson
1983
Cassells Report: reviewed personnel management in the Civil Service
1987
Office of the Minister for the Civil Service created
1992
Civil Service (Management Functions) Act
1995
Abolition of Senior Appointments Selection Committee and replacement with Civil Service Commissioners
1999
Appointment of Special Advisers to members of Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales.
1999
Civil Service Reform Programme launched; The Modernising Government Initiative
2005
Departmental Capability Reviews introduced under Sir Gus O’Donnell
2010
2010 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act put the management of the civil service on a statutory basis.
