Civil Service - masters of detail

The UK civil service was long regarded as among the world’s very best. This was largely a reflection not necessarily of its efficiency, but of the relative absence of corruption. Civil servants were seen as working in the public interest, and unable to be bribed by vested interests. In other countries bureaucrats seemed to line their pockets and their bank balances, but our civil servants were content to do a lifetime’s work and at the end receive perhaps a £2 bronze medal from the Queen that allowed them to put letters after their name.

There are, however, features of the civil service mindset that work to inhibit reform and change. There is a defensive mentality in which they fear the possible consequences of new policies, and what effect any failings might have on their careers. They would no doubt argue that this represents a necessary caution, but it tends to be taken to an excessive level.

A feature that supports the status quo is that civil servants are masters of detail and prefer to tinker with things as they are, when sometimes a preferable policy might be to replace them with something better. They prefer to implement marginal increases or decreases in allowances or thresholds, or to add or subtract a few percentage points here and there, or to raise or lower staffing levels. In doing so they are taking the existing framework as a given, and making minor changes with a view to making it more efficient or to change it in line with changing events.

Sometimes it is the existing framework itself that needs to be changed, rather than tinkered with. Skill at manipulating the small details might make them oblivious to the big picture. If they look minutely at each leaf, they might not see the forest.

Sometimes when they are looking at ways of doing something better, they might miss the question of whether that thing should be done in the way that it is being done, albeit with minor modifications, or even the question of whether it should be done at all.

An obsession with detail is rather Continental, and perhaps acquired during our membership of the European Union. The rest of Europe is mostly governed by Statute Law in which the laws have to be set out in detail so that magistrates can apply the intentions of the legislators.  The English tradition has been more one of Common Law in which the principles are laid down and the details are filled in by a series of judgements by courts and tribunal’s.

The UK is now able, after Brexit, to unpick the thousands of onerous EU regulations that were built up over the decades of our membership. Given the choice, the civil service would probably prefer to examine each regulation and make minor changes here and there. What we should be asking is whether the regulations should be applied in the way that they have been and, indeed, whether they should be applied at all.

EU regulations have largely been process-driven, in which the recipients are told how they must do things. We now have a chance to move to result-driven regulation in which the legislators set out what is to be achieved and leave it to creativity and ingenuity to develop ways of achieving those results.

Civil servants should be given a clear directive from elected legislators to start by asking if each regulation is necessary at all, and then if its purpose might be better achieved by different methods. Detail is all very well, but we should not be so lost in it that we lose sight of principles.