How to be a Civil Servant

Civil Servants Speaking Out

Introduction

A key feature of the UK unwritten constitution is that even the most senior officials - those working the most closely with Ministers - must not show any political allegiance. Individual civil servants may not therefore publicly defend the decisions and views of their Ministers, for that would imply they agreed with them, which could clearly cause problems if the official were subsequently asked to work for a Minister with different views. It is even more obvious, one would think, that civil servants may not criticise Ministers' behaviour or performance. But these rules have been breached a number of times in recent years, and it is possible we are seeing the beginning of a trend. This note lists some examples and offers some explanations.

Examples

The following are some recent examples of civil and other public servants and commenting publicly on Ministerial decisions etc.

• A Director-General in the Lord Chancellor's Department thought it appropriate to write to the Financial Times (18 January 2003) defending the transparency of the system for making judicial appointments.
• The Chief of the Defence Staff wrote an article in The Times on 22 July 2004 expressing his personal support for the Defence Secretary's statement, the previous day, which announced big cuts in the numbers of soldiers, ships etc.
• The Chief Scientific Adviser announced, at a September 2005 meeting of climate change specialists, what he called a "reasonable" target for stabilising carbon dioxide levels, and said that it would be "politically unrealistic" to demand anything lower, and that if he recommended a lower limit he would lose credibility with the government. He went on to suggest that nuclear power was likely to be the answer to climate change. One commentator said that he feared that the government's chief scientist was mutating into its chief spin doctor!
• The Head of the Prison Service gave an interview to the Guardian on 26 October 2005 in which he said that "the fundamental problem is that we lock up too many. We have to reduce the prison population." Although these comments were made only shortly before he retired, they were clearly at odds with the policies of the then Home Secretary.
• The Chief Medical Officer told a Commons committee, on 24 November 2005, that he had considered resigning over the government's refusal to back his call for a full ban on smoking in public places.
• A former ambassador to the United States (Sir Christopher Meyer) published a book in November 2005 ("DC Confidential") in which he criticised Prime Minister Tony Blair for failing to use his leverage in Washington to delay the Iraq war, and said that many British Ministers who had visited the US capital were "political pygmies".
• The army's Chief of General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, told the Daily Mail, in October 2006, that British Forces' presence in Iraq exacerbates the security situation, having "effectively kicked the door in" when they invaded Iraq in 2006, and they should leave Iraq "some time soon".
• Ex-Treasury Permanent Secretary, and ex-Head of the Civil Service, Lord (Andrew) Turnbull told the Financial Times, in March 2007, that Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown operated with "stalinist ruthlessness", used denial of information as an instrument of power, held his colleagues in contempt, and had a Macavity-like ability to evade responsibility for problems that he had caused. Whatever one's view of the Chancellor's effectiveness, none of these descriptions of the Chancellor were new or surprising, and most commentators said that they thought they were essentially true. It is less clear whether Lord Turnbull meant them as criticisms, for many would argue that Gordon Brown was a successful Chancellor because of those qualities. It is also not clear whether Lord Turnbull meant his comments to be published. He was talking to a journalist he had known for 20 years and may well have forgotten the basic rule that newsworthy comments are never definitely "off the record".

Why is it happening - and does it matter?

The first point to be made is that all the people mentioned above either are or were very senior officials who might be expected to have strong views which would not always be shared by Ministers. Also, most but not all of their comments appear to have embarrassed neither the officials concerned nor their Ministers. (Following the Meyer book, however, the Government announced, in March 2006, that it would in future ask those officials working in sensitive areas, and those who have regular contact with Ministers, to sign away to the government any copyright in any future memoirs.) Indeed, anyone not familiar with the subtlety of the UK unwritten constitution might regard the comments listed above as legitimate and grown-up contributions to important debates by those who might be expected to have relevant views. If there is a slippery slope, we are certainly not sliding down it at any speed.

It is also worth noting that several of the above people were not professional civil servants brought up, so to speak, within the main Whitehall civil service. The others were all different sorts of professional experts, and presumably felt a degree of independence from Ministers - a sort of licence to speak their mind.

They may have felt, too, that the old rules are breaking down as Ministers gradually achieve their objective of having 30% of the senior civil service recruited from "outside" and increasingly look to recruit those willing to take more risks than their supposedly fuddy-duddy ex-Whitehall colleagues.

It may all end in tears. Civil Servants used to be proud of the fact that - like doctors and lawyers - they never criticised or breached the confidence of their clients or patients - even years later. Sir Christopher Meyer's book and Lord Turnbull's comments are particularly noticeable and damaging breaches of this ethical rule. Sir Christopher has shown no remorse, but Lord Turnbull probably regretted his comments as soon as he saw them in print. Refusing an opportunity of further interviews, he told the BBC that he thought he had "done enough damage already". However, there is so far no sign that Ministers collectively regret the loquacity of their critical employees, any more than they regret the public expressions of public support from certain other senior officials.

Click here to access other pages dealing with related subjects. And please help me keep this website up to date. Please send me an email if you have interesting new information, or think I have misunderstood anything, or if any of the links stop working. Thank you.