John Jackson (London, Charter 88): In his Mishcon lecture this week Stephen Sedley remarked that in thinking about "the separation of powers", and where that notion fits in our present constitutional settlement, we need to recognise that in the modern world there are important "powers" which influence strongly the life of the state (and its citizens) other than the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. He mentioned political parties and religions: he did not mention the Civil Service.The huge influence that the Civil Service has was brought home to me recently as I observed the passage of the Sustainable Communities Bill - now an Act. This powerful piece of legislation, designed to shift power and initiative from Whitehall to local authorities and local communities by a process of double devolution, originated in a long campaign-"Local Works" - run by a coalition of pressure groups who believed that local communities know best what will enable them to achieve sustainability.
Largely as a result of the interest engendered by local meetings held nation wide, and help from one of the main political parties, the idea of legislation was welcomed by MPs who provided massive parliamentary support for a private member's bill on a cross party basis. There was disappointment when the reaction of Ruth Kelly's then department to the bill ranged from frosty to tepid.
It soon became clear that the problem lay not with ministers but with departmental officials and the advice they were giving. It was never entirely clear what the thinking behind the officials' objections was. It was presented in terms of "this is bureaucratic and won't work" but with such superficial explanation that it looked like a combination of "not invented here" and a reluctance to see a shift of power from "their" department. Gradually ministers understood the merits of the proposals and why they were so strongly supported. Despite a vigorous, almost ruthless, rearguard action by civil servants, the bill, little amended, finally went through all its parliamentary phases with ministerial endorsement as right and important.
Brought up to believe in the independence and probity of the Civil Service, I was quite shocked by some of what I saw. My shock turned to unease when an ex-minister told me "it happens all the time" and, if I believed differently, I was a naive idealist who should spend more time in the real world.
Those words were fresh in my mind when I went to a private gathering to hear a highly respected Permanent Secretary talk about the work of his Department of State. I was struck by the frequency with which he used the word "we" when talking about departmental policies and how they were designed with ministerial involvement both internally and in liaison with other parts of government.
At "question time" I asked him to whom the Civil Service was accountable. His answer was that a full explanation would take a long time but that he was accountable to Parliament. From his amplification of that it was clear that by accountability he meant answering questions. I reflected that in my real world accountability also means that someone else judges your performance against agreed criteria, settles your pay and incentives and decides whether and for how long you should stay in your job.
I laughed at "Yes Minister" but the joke in it was, of course, slightly sick. I am certain that our senior mandarins are honest, intelligent and hard working folk who do cherish the ethos of public service. But I am beginning to wonder whether they are not left too much in their own world with its own language and standards of their own devising. Perhaps "we the people" could be allowed to know more about this aspect of our nation's affairs. After all, we do pay for it.
