The public is failed by a broken Civil Service

Few would describe the Civil Service as the “Rolls-Royce” of public administration today. Its former reputation for quiet efficiency and strict impartiality has evaporated, replaced with a justified suspicion that it is run largely for the benefit of civil servants rather than the country. The human resources mantras of employee “wellbeing” and work-life balance predominate. Productivity is abysmal, and yet nobody ever seems to be held accountable for it.

Indeed, the past few years – the period during which Dominic Raab held high office – might well have shown the Civil Service at its very worst. Ministers felt compelled to bring in an outsider, Dame Kate Bingham, to jumpstart one of the most important government programmes of recent decades: the vaccine taskforce. The fear had been that, had it been left to the bureaucracy, the UK would have been one of the last countries to vaccinate its population, rather than one of the first.

Even now, thousands of civil servants remain wedded to the more leisurely working practices of lockdown. While plenty of businesses have recognised the deleterious effects of home-working on performance, many in the Civil Service rejected the entreaties of Jacob Rees-Mogg, then minister for government efficiency, to return to their offices. Permanent secretaries have appeared more concerned with employee retention and spurious measures of “engagement” than with actual outcomes. The public has been repeatedly failed by the incompetence of dysfunctional agencies such as the Passport Office and the DVLA.

It would have been little wonder, then, had Mr Raab been frustrated at the sloppiness, indolence and obstructionism of some of his officials. The former deputy prime minister has, by most accounts, exacting standards and a keen eye for detail. At the Ministry of Justice, he was seeking to push through a controversial and complicated reform to human rights laws. He has served in government during a particularly turbulent period in the country’s history, including as foreign secretary during the evacuation of Kabul after the Taliban had seized power.

Clearly, the allegations of bullying made against him had to be taken seriously. Although the situation was unusual because ministers are office-holders not employees of their departments, staff in any organisation should expect to be treated fairly by their superiors. It has also become apparent that younger generations have different expectations of professional conduct in the workplace.

However, the definition of what amounts to bullying is inherently subjective and Mr Raab’s contention is that, in this case, the threshold was set much too low. Many readers of his Telegraphcolumn on the incidents, investigated by the employment barrister Adam Tolley KC, that precipitated his exit from government will surely agree.

One involved Mr Raab supposedly abusing his power over a diplomat who, in the former minister’s words, “had gone beyond the democratic mandate set by Cabinet, putting UK sovereignty at risk”. Mr Raab is putting it lightly. That official had incorrectly suggested to Spanish negotiators during Brexit talks that Spain would be permitted to post troops in Gibraltar, a misstatement of British policy that could have plunged the territory into chaos. In most private sector organisations, such an error could easily have resulted in the dismissal of the employee concerned.

Another involved officials who felt insulted at criticism of their work. Mr Raab has apologised for any unintended stress or offence caused. But few workplaces could function without managers being able to give feedback to their staff, even feedback that is robustly expressed. That is doubly true of government, where decisions have to be made at speed and where, ultimately, everyone is meant to be working in service of the public. Or is the implication of Mr Tolley’s inquiry that ministers should avoid any criticism of their officials whatsoever?

If so, then Mr Raab is right that a dangerous precedent has been set. The inquiry “will encourage spurious complaints against ministers, and have a chilling effect on those driving change on behalf of your government – and ultimately the British people”, he wrote in his resignation letter to Rishi Sunak.

Some will fear that biased civil servants who oppose particular policies will have a new tool in their arsenal for obstructing or subverting the will of the Government. In practice, however, it may be that ambitious ministers who wish to shake up their departments or deliver their agendas will simply think twice before pushing their officials too hard.

That would be a tragic outcome from a saga that Mr Raab describes as “Kafkaesque”. The country’s present course is unsustainable. Taxes are at a multi-decade high, and yet the performance of public services has rarely been so woeful. Recent governments have tested to destruction the idea that the solution to every problem in the public sector is more money. The crisis engulfing the NHS, in particular, shows no sign of abating – with the health service incapable of delivering the standard of care that millions expect.

If the UK is to have any chance of prospering, ministers will have to get serious about reforming broken institutions. And to do that they will need an imaginative, flexible and efficient Civil Service to devise policy and drive change. Does anyone genuinely think we have that?