Civil servants should get focused ethics training and be given better routes to raising integrity concerns, a new report recommends.
Improved ways of raising concerns could include expanding ministerial directions so that senior civil servants can use them to publicly raise integrity concerns, says the report, authored by Institute of Regulation chair Marcial Boo.
The recommendations are made in a new Demos report which warns of an “integrity mismatch” between civil servants and politicians.
Boo, a former senior civil servant, says in the report that politicians are able to balance integrity concerns against partisan considerations, sometimes giving less weight to ethical concerns, while civil servants have no such flexibility. He argues that this can lead to “tensions” if officials “have strong ethical qualms about policy decisions they must implement”.
“If poorly handled, the integrity mismatch damages trust and reduces effectiveness: politicians think their legitimate goals are being frustrated by overzealous officials, while public servants believe their legitimate concerns are being ignored by compromised ministers,” the report states.
“Overall government performance suffers,” it adds.
Relations between ministers and civil servants became increasingly strained in the last five years under multiple Conservative administrations, with perm secs quitting in concern over government policy, other top officials being sacked over their perceived views, and civil servants accused of being "activists" and blocking the government's will.
One of the more recent flashpoints came from Rishi Sunak's Rwanda scheme changes, which asked civil servants to ignore European Court of Human Rights interim rulings. The FDA, the union for senior civil servants, took legal action over the policy, saying it had left civil servants "in an impossible position".
Boo, who is a former chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, argues in the report that such tensions are inevitable, but should be better understood and managed.
To do this, he says that the government must first ensure that integrity is “on the agenda, with ethical standards seen as essential to effective government” and senior politicians and public servants making their commitment to high standards of integrity “explicit”.
It should then ensure that politicians and public servants understand what this means in practice, through focused training, he adds.
“It is not enough for induction and training to involve an emailed copy of the Nolan principles,” Boo said. “They should be understood in real-life situations. Pre-emptive conversations, even if uncomfortable, will help both elected politicians and unelected public servants to recognise their complementary roles, and put in place foundations of understanding and trust that will pay dividends ahead of an integrity mismatch that may later take place.”
For civil servants, Boo said training should make clear that “integrity is a core part of their job, but that politicians must have some license in applying ethical standards due to their different decision-making role”.
Officials should receive guidance on basic techniques for providing ethical advice “gently and reasonably, explicitly understanding issues from a political perspective, and providing workable solutions to ethical dilemmas where possible”.
Training for politicians should focus on building respectful working relationships with officials and being willing to hear their ethical concerns “with respect and professionalism”.
Boo, who worked as a senior official in the Home Office and Department for Education, said civil servants also need better ways to raise concerns about integrity.
His report suggests that one way to do this would be to expand ministerial directions so that they can be requested over integrity concerns.
Currently, senior civil servants can ask ministers for a letter of ministerial direction – where they are instructed by politicians, against advice, to implement the policy – if they have concerns about value for money.
The report says the use of letters of ministerial direction could be expanded to explicitly identify concerns about integrity, with the National Audit Office or a parliamentary committee providing periodic scrutiny.
Boo said there should be more active use of reporting channels to senior staff, particularly accounting officers, the cabinet secretary or the Civil Service Commission, "with records kept of ethical concerns raised that can be periodically examined by those formally responsible for integrity in government".
He said this would line up with Sue Gray's recommendation in her Partygate report that it should be easier for public servants to raise concerns about poor behaviour, with identified routes in each government department to support wider cultural change to improve standards.
The government should also make upholding ethical standards the formal responsibility of a specific institution or individual, the report suggests.
Boo said that this could be a strengthened director general of ethics and propriety in the Cabinet Office whose responsibilities could include ensuring that ethical rules are appropriate and understood, and that organisational cultures value integrity in practice. They could commission and publish research on what works to foster integrity in government and public roles, Boo added.
Labour has committed to creating an ethics and integrity commission within its first 100 days in government to reform standards and "ensure probity in government”.
Keir Starmer has also signalled a new approach to ethics, telling journalists in his first press conference as prime minister that he had used his inaugural cabinet meeting to spell out to new ministers what he expects of them “in terms of standards, delivery and the trust that the country has put in them”.