An uncle, working in the 1930s for the publishers Blackwoods, told them that if they published a book as boringly titled as Forty Years a Public Servant he would resign. They did; and he did.
It was a terrible book title. But 40 years in the public service is a sobering background for self-criticism after the recent public enquiries, especially the horrifying Infected Blood Inquiry. None have been close to my own career. All have raised questions about how I or my colleagues might have behaved when bad things were taking place, or when the first questions were being raised about them.
We saw ourselves as honest. For almost all my career, we reckoned our political masters were honest too, though we sometimes disagreed with them. But we were susceptible to groupthink. Whitehall was its own world, far less diverse socially and ethnically than today. Departments were semi-independent institutions, proud of their own identities.
This brought strong team co-operation, loyalty, commitment. But we did not easily absorb views questioning the departmental line, even from colleagues in other departments. Above all, most civil servants didn’t meet outsiders – journalists, academics, activists – with interests in the same field. When we did it was to support ministers when such people came to complain about something. This didn’t stimulate reflection of policy options.
One exception stands out, because it was rare. Preparing legislation on employment discrimination in Northern Ireland, someone convened a weekend gathering of relevant officials, including junior ones like me, and a range of academics and concerned organisations. It was fascinating; and massively improved the legislation.
I switched later to the Foreign Office. It certainly wasn’t immune from groupthink. But serving in posts abroad, a big, enjoyable difference was being expected to meet people with a wide range of opinions to learn their views. Theoretically, this openness continued back in Whitehall: we were encouraged to attend think-tank seminars. In practice, daily pressures made this almost impossible.
In my final civil service job, in the Cabinet Office in London, I was impressed by the far greater diversity among colleagues – not just ethnically and socially, but people of different ages mixed far more than before. One excellent initiative devised by a lively 25-year-old and warmly endorsed by her bosses, was for staff, mainly young, to invite a stimulating speaker to talk at Wednesday lunchtimes. Often they were colleagues’ recent teachers, professors and lecturers, maybe eminent, sometimes quirky, usually challenging.
They made us think. A year or so after I left, I was saddened to hear that ministers had ordered that the publications and social media records of anyone invited to address officials had to be checked: no-one who had criticised the Government should be invited. I hope this has been rescinded, or ignored.
Read more: The Good Friday Agreement: The untold story of the historic peace deal
Read more: Attacking Houthis puts UK into villain combo with Americans
It is a tricky balance. A civil service needs enough separate identity to nurture the sense of public service which the private sector has no reason to develop. It must also be open enough, through exchanges and regular outside contacts, to have perspectives from which to judge itself and its own practices. Today’s more open civil service is probably more questioning than officials were in the recent inquiries. Confident, loyal independence from ministers is also essential.
The recent enquiries teach us history lessons on their individual subjects. But they all provide lessons for the future on managing our official institutions.
George Fergusson was Secretary of the Defence and Overseas Committee in the UK Cabinet Secretariat, 2003-06
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel