….Turning the civil service into a monastic order is not the solution
The writer was cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, 2005-11
Parliament, the media and the wider public are right to be concerned about the Greensill lobbying affair and other accusations of inappropriate relationships between business and government. One of the reasons the UK retains a relatively good record on financial corruption is that as a nation we take allegations of impropriety extremely seriously. Multiple inquiries are under way and the key facts will surely emerge.
What should we do then? Reforms often follow scandal. Some are wise and enduring, like the Victorian era reforms to the civil service and the establishment of public audit. Others are rushed and ineffective. How do we ensure we make the right choices once the current row has subsided?
First, the rules governing lobbying are a classic example of bad reform following a scandal. In 2011, representatives from the now defunct lobbying company Bell Pottinger boasted to an undercover reporter pretending to be from the government of Uzbekistan that they had access to top ministers. The resulting legislation, horsetraded through coalition processes, focused simply on setting up a register of external or “consultant” lobbyists. It doesn’t cover the activity of lobbying, much of which is good, some of which is bad. A serious policy review is required.
Second is the creaking business appointment rules system, where multiple loopholes need closing. The whole system could use more proportionality: joining the board of a local charity is not the same as joining the board of a defence company, but the application form is.
No system of rules can eliminate personal judgment. There must be a better way to set up credible investigations quickly to allow individuals to account for their actions, as David Cameron says he wishes to. That should be the third area of reform.
One protagonist who tragically will not be able to give his side of the story is Lord Heywood of Whitehall, who died in 2018. Jeremy was not just my successor as cabinet secretary but the closest of professional and personal friends. So I hope the inquiries find ways of looking at things that happened during his time in that role fairly.
Key will be looking at the fourth and most important question: what is the optimal relationship between government and the private sector that allows for the infusion of expertise whilst at the same time minimising the risk of inappropriate conduct?
Jeremy was a disrupter who passionately believed the civil service did not have a monopoly on wisdom. He and I and the Treasury drew on extensive outside expertise to help stabilise the banking system after the crash of 2008. He was also instrumental in securing several top private sector hires for the Ministry of Defence to bring its procurement under control a decade ago.
Innovation means risk and with Greensill this does not seem to have paid off. But it would be quite wrong if it led to government freezing out ideas from the private sector. During the same period, Jeremy formed a formidable, pro-reform partnership with ministers to champion better performance in government, much of which drew on commercial skills in areas like digital government.
There are plenty of examples of good practice. Excesses tend to occur when the tired old mantra of “public sector bad; private sector good” takes hold. But there are also clear lessons about the separation of public and private interest, and the need for transparency around arrangements.
These reforms will help keep the UK as free from financial corruption as possible. The private and public sectors need to work together effectively; that will not be achieved by turning the civil service into some sort of administrative monastic order. (Financial Times).
