Civil Service Reform 27

This note summarises developments from the election of the Labour (Keir Starmer) Government on 4 July 2024 through to the end of 2025.

New Ministerial Code

The Prime Minister took a long time to publish his own Ministerial Code, but the delay seems to have been worthwhile as several useful improvements have been made.

There were significant changes to the sections on powers of the independent adviser and the acceptance of 'freebies'.

Of more direct interest to civil servants (emphases added):

The code once again (but unlike the immediately previous code) explicitly included international law when it recorded ministers' 'overarching duty to comply with the law'.

It also now clarified that 'the ultimate responsibility for public appointments and thus the selection of those appointed rests with ministers ... Ministers have a duty to ensure that influence over civil service and public appointments is not abused for partisan purposes.'

The number of Spads per department was no longer limited to two - but this rule had not in practice been observed for many years.

The Code reaffirmed ministers' ‘duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants’ and repeated that a private secretary or official should be present for all discussions relating to government business.  

There was some welcome new text:

The relationship between ministers and civil servants is a partnership underpinned by their common duty of public service as set out in this code and in the civil service code.

 Ministerial office requires candour and openness. Ministers should demand and welcome candid advice. They should be as open as possible with parliament and the public.

Permanent secretaries are the most senior civil servants in government departments. They are the principal advisers to departmental ministers and are responsible for translating ministers' ambitions into a clear vision to staff, and upholding the rules and guidance they are bound by as civil servants and Accounting Officers. Ministers and permanent secretaries should have a trusting positive relationship, with regular opportunities for the exchange of feedback.

The Attorney-General has also issued welcome new guidance on how government lawyers should assess legal risk when advising ministers.  The main change was that, even in cases where a challenge is not likely, lawyers are told they must assume that a challenge will be brought and consider what a court would decide.  Joshua Rozenberg:

… lawyers can no longer sign off something dubious on the basis that it’s unlikely to be challenged. ... there is less of a ‘can we get away with it?’ vibe now.

Relations with the Civil Service   &  "the tepid bath of managed decline"

Mr Starmer's relationship with the civil service began positively: 

"From the get go, I want you to know that you have my confidence, my support and, importantly, my respect." 

Minister Pat McFadden, only seven days after the election, said that ministers must stop “going around beating the civil service up” and stop blaming officials for policy failures. The Labour government intended to create a culture of innovation and “learning as you go” for the civil service. He believed that Labour’s close relationship with the civil service would enable its long-term goals to come to fruition. 

“You’re not going to drive change through the traditional method of writing a white paper, throwing it over a wall and hoping something happens,” 

The Prime Minister was less positive in his 'Plan for Change' speech in December 2024:

Make no mistake – this plan will land on desks across Whitehall…With the heavy thud of a gauntlet being thrown down. A demand, given the urgency of our times… For a state that is more dynamic… More decisive… More innovative…Less hostile to devolution and letting things go…Creative - on the deployment of technology…Harnessing its power to rethink services…Rather than replicate the status quo in digital form. 

...

Country first, party second.  Because this is something we’ve totally lost sight of in British politics…  And, to be honest, across Whitehall as well. I don’t think there’s a swamp to be drained here… But I do think too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline. Have forgotten, to paraphrase JFK… That you choose change, not because it’s easy… But because it’s hard. 

Sky's Beth Rigby commented as follows (emphasis added):

Five months into government, on Thursday, he gathered his cabinet and crowd in Pinewood Studios to launch this six milestones for government. But if it was meant to be a box office moment, it all felt a bit flat.
Over the past 18 months, we've had three foundations, five missions, six first steps and now, on Thursday, six milestones, with a 42-page plan.
Speak to the prime minister at the edges of these events, and he can make a compelling case for his missions and the clarity he has for government. But somehow it is getting lost in translation as the missions become the first steps, become milestones with three foundations to boot. It can be hard to find a narrative in what this government is trying to do.
Thursday was an attempt to change that with six measurable milestones now set up so you, Whitehall and the cabinet, are all crystal clear about where they are heading.
Some of them are a departure from manifesto pledges, others are not. Some of them are genuinely ambitious, others less so.
The manifesto promise to have the fastest growing economy in the G7 is now an 'aim' while the new milestone is to 'raise living standards in every part of the United Kingdom, so working people have more money in their pockets' is a new target. The idea is to make the pledge more 'human' but the PM wouldn't say how much he wanted to raise living standards - and household disposable income is already set to rise by the end of this parliament.
Then on opportunity for all, in the run-up to the election the government promised to recruit 6,500 more teachers to improve teaching in state secondaries. Now the milestone they are asking to be measured on is a promise that 75% of five-year-olds are ready to learn in England when they start school against 67% today.
There is a new milestone to fast-track planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects.
There is a milestone to put a named bobby back on the beat in every neighbourhood, while the pledge to halve violence against women and girls has not been marked up as a milestone.
Why are they doing it now and to what end? At its heart this is an attempt to give voters clear targets on which they can, to quote Starmer himself, 'hold the government's feet to the fire'. But it felt a bit like a rag bag of measures in which some past promises were pushed aside and others pumped up.
The 1.5 million housing target, the pledge to return to the NHS standard of 92% of patients being seen for elective treatment in 18 weeks, the commitment to green power by 2030 are all ambitious. But things that are perhaps too risky or hard to meet have been dropped.
One of the biggest omissions in the milestones was migration. This surprised me, not least because the prime minister had said clearly that the economy and borders were his two main priorities in government and a clear concern for voters. But instead of making it one of his milestone measures, for which the public can hold him accountable, the PM said securing borders was one of the 'foundations' of his government. There is no metric on which to measure him beyond net migration coming down from record levels of 800,000 plus in the past couple of years. Perhaps he could have been more ambitious in setting a target to hit in terms of cutting legal migration or small boat crossings. Perhaps he could have committed to a deportation figure - something that Harriet Harman suggested he might have done on our episode of Electoral Dysfunction this week. But I suspect, in the end, Number 10 decided it was too risky to try to set targets.

But with a disaffected electorate, high levels of scepticism, and a Reform party playing into that anti-politics sentiment, Starmer knows he must galvanise his government to try to deliver tangibles before the next election, and this speech will perhaps be looked back on as one aimed as much at Whitehall as it was you, the voter. He explicitly challenged the British state to deliver in this speech saying his Plan for Change was 'the most ambitious plan for government in a generation' and would require a 'change to the nature of governing itself' as he called on the state to become more dynamic, decisive, innovate, embracing of technology and artificial intelligence.

'Make no mistake, this plan will land on desks across Whitehall with the heavy thud of a gauntlet being thrown down, a demand given the urgency of our times,' he told his audience as he fired a warning shot to Whitehall. 'I do think there are too many people in Whitehall who are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline. Had forgotten, to paraphrase JFK, that you choose change not because it's easy, but because it's hard.'

Starmer and his team know that without galvanising Whitehall and setting clear navigation through this mission and now measurable milestones, delivery will be hard. The plan is for stock takes on the missions and milestones in order to hold mandarins accountable.

David Henig commented:

Big talk of action, but no reflection that officials do their jobs of pursuing the many different interests of a modern government. It is for the centre of government led by Ministers to reconcile and prioritise by making decisions that may be unpopular. They often won't. ... Many people don't seem to realise that the whole government machine coordinates because policy crosses departmental lines. [It is] second nature. The issue is always how to reconcile differences. That needs political leadership. ... What I see is politicians demanding the pain-free option, which doesn't exist.  And denying the need for process to show the fairness of decisions. Ending with inaction and secrecy.  

There's a decision ministers could take today which would demonstrate action in support of growth and Whitehall would be empowered. That is to align with EU goods regulations unless there's a good reason not. Who is not making that decision? Whitehall, or Ministers?

Maybe this time it will work. But I just see the same words as previous governments, which assume there are magic solutions that somehow haven't been deployed before to achieve growth, a well functioning NHS, etc. Sure, you can improve. But I don't see enough recognition of underlying issues.

[I] don't like the cross-party consensus that 'Whitehall' is to blame for the UK's recent failings, whether it is because it is too woke or too timid. Very convenient for politicians though.

[In response to Starmer's criticism of a £100m bat tunnel and no reservoirs being built for for 30 years.]  So where is the commitment to revoke all laws that protect bat habitats? Not happening, presumably, and for good reason. So we have Schrodinger's Bat, perhaps - one that is legally protected but where that protection doesn't affect any construction.  

Here is my blog:

Civil servants were the subject of a number of pre-Christmas communications, including from Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden:

Too many civil servants are “comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline” and “caught in bad systems”. They need to “feel emboldened [to] upset the apple cart … Too often, needless bureaucratic impediments, silos, processes about processes, all impede your ability … to deliver for the people we are here to serve. And from the conversations that I have had with many of you over the past five months, I know these barriers frustrate you every bit as much as they frustrate me.”

“From my time as director of public prosecutions, I know first-hand just how fortunate this country is to have a Civil Service that is admired across the world. … I know how hard you work … [I recognise your] dedication, professionalism and strong sense of public service. … You want to change the country and make Britain a better place”.

“Instead of writing more complicated policy papers and long strategy documents, the government will set … teams a challenge and empower them to experiment, innovate and try new things.”

Newly appointed Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald added that the Prime Minister “has been clear that he wants a re-wiring of the way the government works … this will require all of us to do things differently – from working much more effectively across departments to taking advantage of the major opportunities technology provides”.

I recognise that these comments were principally aimed at ‘the blob’ - the mandarins who (supposedly, and deliberately or otherwise) delay or oppose ministers’ attempts to introduce exciting and important new policies. But most civil servants are employed in agencies or local offices, collecting taxes, paying benefits, examining novice drivers, forecasting tomorrow’s weather. They are no more ‘frustrated’, nor ‘dedicated’, nor opposed to change, than are their friends and relations in the private sector. It would surely help if senior ministers avoided over-generalising and put a little effort into defining more clearly what they want to change.

More importantly, I don’t know if it was deliberate, but the targeting of the Civil Service looked like an attempt to blame officials, in advance, for future government failures. We all recognise that just about every part of our political system has failed in recent years. I and others have written extensively about weaknesses in the civil service. Ian Dunt and many others have written extensive criticisms of ‘Westminster’ and beyond. But you can’t sensibly blame the civil service for politicians ….

It troubles me, too, that the Prime Minister and others think it worth spending time and political capital on civil service issues when they (and we) have so much else to worry about, including …

Here are some other’s comments on what ministers said. Robert Shrimsley in the FT:

Reform is not delivered by declamation. It is slow, detailed and difficult. It is dangerous to invest too heavily in the idea of government as a startup. Agile work processes are effective for new and discrete projects, but organisations whose decisions affect millions of lives cannot "move fast and break things".

Amy Gandon :

Framing the failings of Whitehall as a matter of personal complacency … misses the point. Civil servants are not slow, risk-averse or inexpert because they choose to be. They are slowed down by 5 layers of people signing off their work. They are risk-averse because mistakes mean headlines and ministers don’t always back them to innovate.

They may end up inexpert because the only route to better pay or more responsibility and satisfaction is to slip around departments every 18 months. Now is that a matter of personal responsibility or system failure, you tell me?

David Higham quoted Norman Lamont, many years ago:

I am astonished how, when things go wrong, often it is the civil servants who are blamed when it is we politicians who make the decisions and it is we politicians who should carry the blame.

And here is a current civil servant, writing anonymously in the Guardian:

Is it excessively uncharitable to suggest that the ideological vanguard of the new cabinet may be panicking, and is falling back on well-worn tropes about the recalcitrance of the civil service “blob” in an effort to distract attention from the fact that they are tying themselves in knots about exactly what to fix first? After all, five months in and – despite the Plan for Change relaunch-not-relaunch in early December – is it that much clearer what this new government really wants to do, including to the government? …

I don’t have a problem with targets; no good civil servant does. [But] demoralising his workforce isn’t going to do the PM, or the public, any favours. As union boss Dave Penman has pointed out, civil servants support reform and are up for the challenge of improving public services. Couldn’t the prime minister try to bring us with him?

Let me finish by recognising that it is early days for this administration. They are not responsible for the politicians’ failures listed in the middle of this blog, and it is still too soon to expect them to have finalised their plans for local government and defence spending, social care, the NHS etc. etc. We await their (and not their officials’) decisions with interest.

I also recognise that the senior ranks of the civil service could have done better in recent years when they failed sufficiently to challenge Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. The Civil Service is no longer a Rolls Royce, if ever it was.

But the Civil Service in general, and Whitehall in particular, is still full of genuinely talented, hard working and committed public servants. They are amongst the least of the problems facing Sir Keir and his colleagues.

"Reform of the State has to Deliver for the People"

Speaking a few days after the Prime Minister (and also referenced in the above comments), Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden was quite a bit more positive:

So let me be clear, I work with hard working and diligent civil servants every day. They want to do well for their country and for the public.  The people are good but the systems and structures that they work in are too often outdated and make it hard for them to deliver.  And no one will welcome changing that situation more than civil servants themselves.

He also referenced civil service successes such as turning round the Passport Office and Universal Credit.  And the rest of the speech was perfectly sensible though (to this mind at least) a little superficial.  There was lots of encouragement for creativity and improvements to recruitment processes, for instance,  But there was no analysis of the deeper reasons for the failure of the British State.  It was certainly not a template for 'Reform of the State', even if this was its title.

You can read the full speech here.

Plans to Fundamentally Reshape the Civil Service?

There was a flurry of announcements in March 2025 but they did not, of course, come anywhere near fundamentally reshaping the Civil Service.  The highlights were reported as follows:

The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary used an all-staff email to say the government’s “ambitious vision for national renewal” will require “a rewiring of the British state – creating a renewed civil service; more agile, mission-focused and more productive”.

Ministers want to 'fundamentally reshape the civil service'.

The civil service "would and can become smaller".

There would be performance-related pay for senior civil servants.

Line managers would be given more tools to address poor work performance.  Senior civil servants who did not meet the standards expected of them will be put on development plans, after which they can be dismissed, he said. There would also be a "mutually agreed exits" process, in which underperforming are “incentivised” to leave their jobs.

The Prime Minister delivered a speech a few days later about 'the fundamental reform of the British State' but this was mainly about regulators and regulation.  You can read it here, on my regulation website.

Cabinet Minister Pat McFadden then presented a Parliamentary Written Statement on 14 May 2025 entitled 'Places for Growth' and including these proposals:

- Bringing more decision-making out of Whitehall and closer to communities, ensuring 50% of UK-based Senior Civil Servants (SCS) are located outside London in the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by 2030.

- Strengthening the Government presence across the country, with 13 Cross-Government Regional Hubs. These Hubs will have end-to-end careers across the Civil Service, allowing promotion without having to relocate, and foster collaboration across organisations and all spheres of Government, with talent feeding in from regional ‘spokes’.

- Strengthening the talent pipeline: Building a long term pipeline of talent across the country, including by:

  • Launching a new apprenticeship programme - CS Career Launch Apprenticeship which will support entry into the Civil Service in Birmingham and Manchester (as well as London).
  • Setting an ambition to have 50% of Fast Stream roles based outside London by 2030. This would strengthen regional talent and support the ambition to bring the Civil Service closer to the communities it serves.
  • Committing to develop and launch a local government interchange programme in partnership with the Local Government Association (LGA). Working with LGA to develop secondment programmes focused on working with local government.

- Building on the success of the Darlington Economic Campus, Sheffield Policy Campus and the Leeds Health and Social Care Hub, we want to explore opportunities for more campuses to create strategic partnerships between central and local Government as well as industry partners, taking multi-disciplinary approaches to complex issues and making the most of each region’s strengths across the country. Two of the new campuses will be a new Government Digital and AI Innovation Campus and Energy Campus to be launched in Manchester and Aberdeen.

A Government of Missions and Services ?

This was the subject of The Radical How published in 2024. I liked it!  Here is what I said at the time:

I was glad to be able to read the recently published The Radical How, co-authored by Andrew Greenway and Tom Loosemore, who want to 'shift government from an organisation of programmes and projects, to one of missions and services'. 

One reason I wanted to read it, apart from its subject matter, was that Andrew Greenway had previously co-authored Bluffocracy - a brilliant take down of ...

'... the top of our government, our media and the civil service [where] core skills are talking fast, writing well and endeavouring to imbue the purest wind with substance. They know a little bit about everything, and an awful lot about nothing. 

So this new report promised to be a good read, which indeed it was.  Here is my summary and occasional comment:-

It's always useful to divide Civil Service/Government Reform reports into three elements:

·      The Problems
·      Possible Improvements
·      Implementation

The Problems

The report is on strong ground by homing in on an interesting selection of problems:

·      Governments focus too much on outputs (as distinct from outcomes) because of the long lead-in times to achieving and being able to measure outcomes, especially for long-term, national-level ambitions.

·      Vertical lines of accountability are inflexible and discourage cross-team working.

·      Hypothesis-driven cost-benefit analysis as demanded by HMT in business cases is a good thing, provided these hypotheses are tested against realities, and the analysis is iterated over time. But, all too often, the hypotheses are not tested until it’s much too late to iterate anything.

The final bullet is a particularly interesting. I would add that much the same applies to post-implementation evaluation.  Hardly anyone in government is interested in it.  The Treasury set a bad example by hardly ever evaluating the success of the Chancellor's policies.  And most Ministers (and hence senior officials, who take their lead from Ministers) aren't interested in learning from pilot projects.  They like headline-attracting national rollouts.

The report's authors stress that this is a cultural issue as much as a process one.  

'[A recent PAC report] says that “programme resets are typically viewed negatively, government bodies continue to try to resolve unresolvable issues, leading to wasted effort and costs, rather than admitting the need for a reset.”   In other words, even when the management information is available, decisive corrective action tends not to happen.

In practice, it means placing huge bets on the assumptions made at the policy stage. Yet this is almost always the moment where the least is known. The small policy or analytical error can snowball into a catastrophic mistake as implementation ramps up. And when faced with a hostile opposition and media environment, the cultural temptation to bury heads in the sand rather than face up to mistakes often serves to compound the damage further.

But who cares what the Public Accounts Committee says?

'Select Committee or Public Accounts Committee hearings are almost always a ‘red pen’ exercise - they happen after things go wrong, or when they are very obviously about to. This turns them into performative occasions, in which committee members attempt to tease out admissions of failure while witnesses go on the defensive. Candour is rare. And in any case, by the time a hearing takes place, the issues in delivering the programme are usually far too advanced for a committee’s recommendations to make much difference.

Hearings like these don’t do much to improve outcomes. But they do encourage a certain set of skills to prosper in the senior ranks of the civil service. ... Lower grade civil servants, who have the knowledge of the daily realities of public service delivery their senior management lack, never get invited at all. The fact that very few of the civil servants who’ve deployed the kind of approaches described in this report (or come from civil service professions that think in these ways) have risen to the point of taking part in these committees is a real problem.

... Even the Public Accounts Committee, supported by the National Audit Office, is constrained in how far and in what directions it can dig. The language is also telling - ‘audit’ is an activity intentionally looking for malfeasance, or picking through the bones of failure. It is bound to look for flaws to address, rather than flagging opportunities to improve.

Possible Improvements

The report helpfully highlights a number of success stories.  Universal Credit, for instance, was a rare example of turning around a huge programme that was “heading for nowhere but the rocks.”

'A crucial moment for the new team was the Secretary of State saying to them: “I want you to deliver an intervention that means we support more people to find more work, more of the time, while protecting those who can’t work.” Note the difference between this and: “I want you to deliver Universal Credit.” The Minister set a clear outcome for the team to achieve, not a named policy for them to deliver.

But how to replicate this?

The authors suggest reframing the roles of ministers, Senior Responsible Owners (SROs - the senior official ultimately accountable for a programme), and Parliamentary committees.

'Make them more oriented around missions or outcomes, rather than departmental lines of accountability. Create the constitutional space for select committees to confer honours for exceptional public service, to position them as advocates of great work as much as those holding poor performance to account.

As other commentaries on civil service reform have referenced, lasting institutional change will require ministers to adapt their roles and norms too. The prescription often points towards better training - vocational education on how to be more effective in a job many new ministers have no professional parallel for. This is important, but not enough.

The same logic applies to ministers leading missions for a couple of days per week - the closer they are to the team and to the realities of how ideas play out in practice, the more effective they are likely to be at delivering the political aims they seek.

There are some intensely practical ways to help create that closeness. Ministers usually spend most of their time ensconced in their own Whitehall department buildings. The physical geography of power is important. Co-locating ministers responsible for delivering missions for a couple of days per week - possibly alongside decanting Number 10 for a long-overdue refurbishment - would cost nothing and help literally bring down the walls between departmental silos.

The report recognises that Ministers will too often be reshuffled to pastures new ...

'... but civil service leadership should be more long-lasting. Consistent senior leadership is an enduringly reliable indicator of success in government transformation efforts, longevity of tenure in Senior Service Owner roles is essential. Senior civil servants will need to be given clear, positive incentives that staying in post long enough to make a substantial contribution is to their benefit, as much as it is to the programme as a whole.

It follows that:

We must also rethink how civil servants are rewarded. Again, that does not mean throwing out the existing package. But it must involve a full discussion of how sufficient flexibility is introduced to induce and retain a far more diverse pool of talent, recognising both the fact that people’s needs change over time, and that the labour market itself is changing fast.

Turning to Parliament:

We need mechanisms for public scrutiny of progress towards delivering missions that are real-time rather than post-hoc, bring expertise from multiple fields to bear, and subject the government’s highest priorities to robust, informed and constructive feedback. We also need them to recognise and celebrate success, as well as traducing failure.

Implementation

This is, so far, all good stuff.  But will anyone take the lead in implementing these recommendations?  The authors ...

'... believe in the old adage about making the most of a crisis. We think taking a new approach makes it possible to shift government from an organisation of programmes, projects and paperwork, to one of missions, services and people.

But the civil service would need to take the lead:

'Public service management practice and organisation is a domain few ministers have chosen to enter. The current orthodoxy is entrenched, and very hard to change. Even political leaders who want to change it rarely have enough time in office to even start thinking about how.

Multiple attempts to reform how the machinery of government works over recent decades have failed to deliver radically improved outcomes at scale.  Tweaks to departmental structures, new processes, or the creation of central units, have yielded some advances. But their effect on the overall character and direction of the public service has been fleeting.

The rare exceptions to this - and they exist in central government, local government and the NHS - prove the point. Thanks to unusual circumstances that created political cover, they were able to practise the methods we describe in this report - and they delivered. And yet these exceptions have remained just that. When leaders move on or the circumstances change, ways of working revert to the norm.

And, by the way:

Addressing the current and growing capability gap will demand substantial interventions. Civil service training is a pale shadow of what it was 50 years ago. A National College for Government would pay for itself in saved management consultancy fees. Investing in that - and making it open to participants from outside the civil service - would start to answer the need for a talent pipeline in expensive, scarce skills like cyber security or data science.

There are, unfortunately, no signs that the current civil service leadership has any interest in any of this.  Brexit implementation, the flawed response to Covid and many other blunders have come and gone.  Powerful broadsides such as this one have no discernible impact even though (or because?) it was fired by two former Permanent Secretaries.

Coincidentally, the Institute for Government today (11 March) published a report on the organisation of government which recommended, amongst other things that ‘there should be a new statute for the civil service and the Civil Service Board to hold its leadership accountable for reform priorities’. 

Maybe, just maybe, the Keir Starmer/Sue Gray combination will listen?

Let's hope so.

Getting a Grip on the System

The above named Policy Exchange Report was also published around the time of the 2024 election and also deserved more attention than was available at this time.  It was written by a bipartisan team and examines the resistance to change that faces any energetic minister.  Former Labour minister Jim Murphy set the scene with two great quotes in his foreword to the report:

In his diary, the Duke of Wellington described the culture shock of switching from issuing orders to his officers, to chairing Cabinet as Prime Minister: ‘An extraordinary affair. I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them.’

When I first became a Minister Tony Blair told a much younger me that the good news was that the British civil service had the engine of a Rolls Royce but the bad news was that it also the brakes of a Rolls Royce.  He added with his trademark smile that if you don’t drive it, it may find a lay-by to park itself in.

The report itself sets the scene in this way:

So many former Ministers, from the lowliest parliamentary-undersecretary of state, to the “first amongst equals”, often say the same thing: their time in office was frustrating, the system was sclerotic and glacial, the connection between the will of the people and the willingness of the machinery of government to enact it was at times tenuous.

On the left, they complain about the ‘establishment’; on the right, ‘the blob’. The point is identical: democratically-elected Governments, with clear majorities and mandates, and willing, energetic Ministers, meet mighty but subtle forces of resistance. This resistance stems not from bodies of armed men, nor powerful financiers, nor shadowy cabals in St James’s clubs. We can leave that to the writers of political fiction and satirists. It stems from systems, cultures, attitudes, assumptions, groupthink, and at times inertia: the desire not only to assess risk, but ideally to avoid it altogether; to do what has always been done.

Some of its 36 recommendations were more controversial than others.  Those of particular interest to the Civil Service were that pay should be improved and the National School for Government reestablished.  And ministers should should be consulted on senior civil servant performance assessments. 

Recommendations with wider implications include:

Consult on changes to the Civil Service Code to make it clear officials are bound to comply with UK law, meaning it is entirely for Ministers to agree the Government’s risk appetite on international law.

Reform the process of assessing legal risk, giving commissioning officials a stronger input into assessing the likelihood of legal challenge, not leaving this entirely to Government Legal Service.

All Ministers should be given the right to establish personal advisory panels to act as a sounding board for policy proposals being developed in the departments. These should be paid, directly appointed positions capable of seeing departmental papers. The Cabinet Secretary should ensure these are ready to be established across Whitehall in all departments where incoming Ministers have indicated they want them.

Pass a Bill to enhance and make consistent Arms Length Bodies’ accountability to Ministers. A single Bill should ensure that all statutory Bodies are subject to Ministerial strategic direction, and that the Chair, executives and board are expected to follow these and potentially can be removed if they do not. All Bodies with regulatory/executive functions should be required to take account of costs and benefits in the exercise of their functions.

Reform the Public Appointment Regulations to clarify diversity does not override the merit principle; to strengthen the role of Independent Assessors and to enable Ministers to accelerate preferred candidates direct to interview, the remaining process continuing according to merit.

There are lots of other interesting recommendations so I suggest that this is a 'must read' report for anyone interested in Whitehall/ Civil Service reform.

House of Lords Debates

Towards the end of 2024 the Lords engaged in a three hour discussion about the Civil Service.  It was a useful summary of current concerns including interesting contributions from several previous ministers and Cabinet Secretaries.  You can read some extracts here.

Recently ennobled Sue Gray included this passage in her maiden speech in March 2025:

I want to return to my first set of jobs in what was the Department for Social Security, working in employment support, as it is highly relevant to today’s debate and to the future of our Civil Service. Back then, I worked with truly heroic and committed people, striving every day, in very difficult circumstances, to help people in even more challenging situations. They were the Civil Service at its best: on the front line, as far away from Whitehall’s machinations as it is possible to be. Today, I see the same sort of brilliance. What these and other civil servants are doing is central to the Government’s—and the nation’s—mission to bring growth back into our economy and security to our society. That is why I would caution all of us to be careful, not only about our decisions but our language also. When we hear phrases with “blobs”, “pen-pushers”, “axes”, “chainsaws” and other implements, they hear it too.

Dissatisfaction

The Starmer government increasingly disappointed both its supporters and neutral commentators.  Here is what Harry Lambert said in February 2025:

A few readers sent in some great responses to the last post on Dominic Cummings that I wanted to share.

First, a former Downing Street official (older, male):

There are many fragments of truth in this and in Cummings’ comments. But Cummings was essentially lazy - nothing systematic, just rants… [In government] the generalisations fall apart quickly. Some tasks are best done by discrete teams with lots of power (Aadhaar, vaccines etc). For others that's a disaster. Some can work with tight performance management – others not at all. In some fields Silicon Valley methods work well – in others they quickly backfire.

I see Cummings as part of a broader problem. Although he's interested in science, his background is history and he never applies a scientific or engineering method to anything, rather just jumping to opinion. He reflects an essentially literary commentariat who really find the engineering details of government, what I call the plumbing – very boring, and so jump, like Cummings, to colourful generalisation rather than analysis.

Every other field the UK excels at favours learning from the best globally – sport, science, business. Yet when it comes to government we appear to learn nothing, e.g. from the top ten effective governments (which are ranked each year – the UK isn't one of them). Cummings is a remarkable example, not just of ignorance but also lack of any curiosity.

And yes there are still no signs that the new government has a plan, or even a plan for a plan, for 'rewiring the state'. This was never going to be Sue Gray's strength, and it's not Wormald's background. So we are still stuck in rhetorical responses rather than serious ones (with slagging off civil servants the easiest, and laziest option).

I spend much of my life working with the best governments around the world on the detail of this… The UK used to be one of the leaders on much of it, but politicians long ago lost interest; the civil service has lost confidence and capability; and the commentators by their nature try to turn things into pithy 800 words opinions which are more often part of the problem than the solution.

A former civil servant in two major departments of state – younger, female – says:

A lot of what he's written rings true to my time in government. It felt like for a long time policy making was about how it could get a good headline for a minister or how said senior civil servant could retain head count… a focus on 'comms' was always at the forefront, I felt.

It may be idealistic but having ministers connected to constituencies and peoples' votes feels important. Not sure what the answers are but feels like we need radical action/thinking as I've never felt this depressed about the UK before.

And a recent history graduate writes in to say:

Starmer, Reeves and Lammy haven’t said anything remotely interesting or NEW or even produced something that demonstrated that they had reflected deeply… I’m not a Cummings fan boy but find that he is speaking about important things which no one else seems concerned about and even seems to grasp.

I also think Starmer is a joke. In 5 years of opposition plus government he has said nothing remotely interesting and lacks a basic grasp of economics, politics and history. This is evident from any interview that lasts more than a couple of minutes. He can’t think on his feet, lacks any ideas or hinterland and just repeats some meaningless blob of corporate newspeak. The fact that he has an enormous majority and knows nothing about what he wants to do with it is such a shame but predictable… he lacks purpose and ideas – [it is] no wonder why his government has flopped so quickly.”

I am convinced the combination of immigration, QE, insecurity, inequality and political incompetence is going to metastasise into some large scale social and political crisis pretty soon. WE CANNOT CONTINUE AS WE ARE. At least Starmer’s uselessness is going to accelerate this.

Dave Penman's Speech

Speaking at his union's annual conference in the summer of 2025, General Secretary Dave Penman ...

... rejected the idea that civil servants are resistant to change, arguing instead that “the civil service is hungry for reform” and challenging the government to simply “get on with it”.  He criticised the language used by the government to characterise its civil servants, stating that they “don’t get to decide the size of government, ministers do. They don’t create regulations or regulators to enforce them, ministers do.
 
“So, let’s cut out the language of a ‘bloated state’, of ‘blockers’ and ‘the usual suspects’. “Civil servants can be the engine room of reform, they are hungry for it. But reform has to have substance. Being in government means it needs to be more than a buzzword in a speech. There has to be clear political objectives, a matching of resources to commitments and a plan.”
 
Mr Penman also challenged ministers to provide its civil service with “a clear plan for improved public services and a people plan to match”.  He said the government needs “a plan for what unlocking the digital and AI revolution can actually mean in reality. A plan for how services will be delivered differently, for how the civil service can attract, grow, and retain the right talent for the next decade, not simply be fixated with the staffing levels in the last one”.
 
Penman also lamented the pace of progress since Labour took power back last summer: “Civil service reform will take time to design, negotiate and implement, and all too soon ministers will be focusing on the next election. Almost 12 months in with the new government and we’re nowhere near the sort of discussion we need to be having, for that once in a generation reform that the civil service so badly needs. In this spending round it may not feel like the sun is shining, but we do now need to fix the roof.  “The new government has been given a once in a generation majority. It has set itself high ambitions and we all know that there is much to be done to improve public services. It needs a strong, skilled and motivated workforce to deliver them. That’s why we need to get on with it.”

Operational Delivery

It was good to see a Commons committee taking an interest in UK-wide operational delivery, and it is even better to see the PAC highlight the “enormous” innovative potential of the 290,000-strong operational delivery profession.

I cannot improve on Civil Service World’s summary of the PAC report:

[The PAC] says the civil service needs to create “an environment that encourages openness, innovation, and challenge of current thinking, with senior leaders who see failure as an opportunity to learn rather than an exercise in sharing out blame”.

It calls on departmental heads of profession to set out how they will ensure that their staff have the time, skills, tools and support to “raise ideas, learn from each other, and get involved with improving services”.

The report also warns that the visibility of the Operational Delivery Profession beyond the civil service is low and says this is “a barrier to people seeing it as the right career path for them”.

The ODP’s members in public-facing roles work in prisons, issue passports, process benefits claims, work in jobcentres, administer the tax system, process people at the UK Border, and more.

Raising the profession’s external profile would “encourage the brightest and best to join it, particularly students”, the report says.

You can read the full PAC report here.

Cabinet Secretary Under Fire

It was sadly unsurprising that No10 had started briefing against Chris Wormald. He would be gone already, it is said, if it were not for (an entirely fictitious) rule that he should be allowed at least 12 months in post.

I commented that: "His was certainly a rather strange appointment by a Prime Minister devoted to ‘change’. I remember attending one of his presentations when he was Head of the Policy Profession and being impressed that he admitted that quite a bit of policy work was of poor quality - but then being disappointed that he didn’t seem very keen to do much about it. And his Department of Health track record wasn’t brilliant - insufficient pandemic preparation - and infected blood. Others, to be fair, have told me how good he is - whilst yet others suggest that he is not good at listening to those who report to him."

Whatever the truth, the recent negative briefing wasn’t good for the civil service, or the Prime Minister, or for effective government.

Subsequent developments are summarised here.

Martin Stanley

 

Follow @ukcivilservant.bsky.social on Bluesky

Spotted something wrong?
Please email me at ukcs68@gmail.com if you spot anything that is out-of-date, or any other errors, typos or faulty links.