In 2002, John Hunt Publishing published a book I wrote called "DO WHAT?: THE CIVIL SERVICE". I also wrote a book on film and TV for the same series. It was my agent's idea that I write one on the civil service because, well, I was in it. I wasn't keen at first but in the event enjoyed the research, structuring the content, writing the cartoons, etc. I'd joined the civil service quite late in life, needing a steady job that would allow me to continue my writing career without too much interference. I approached the subject, quite naturally, as an idiot about it and therefore was I think able to put the material across clearly to its intended audience of teenagers. My Department, DTI (at the time), liked it enough to give a copy to all new entrants.
 
I thought it might be interesting to include a bit of it on this blog, if only to provide a contrast to the somewhat different views about the civil service that I developed later in my career there.
 
* * *
 
CHAPTER 5: WHAT DOES A DEPARTMENT STORE?
 
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn
 
YOU CAN'T ESCAPE THE LAW
 
Imagine you're taking a walk along your road to the shops at the end of it. Look at everything around you - the houses, pavement, road, hedges, trees and the sky. Well, you won't see anything that isn't controlled by government legislation or law.
 
If you live in town, then every house you pass has to conform to the law. For example, no one can simply build a bit onto their house without planning permission. If a man wants to have a giant plastic shark sticking out of the top of his roof (and there is such a man in Oxford) he'll have to spend years fighting the local authorities who will insist that the law doesn't allow for large marine life to be obstructing the skyline. Artists and people with a sense of humour might like it but then they're not paid to uphold the law.
 
Even the satellite dishes on people's walls are only there because legislation says they can be, providing they're not bigger than a certain size. Not only that but several different Departments will have had a say in the legislation. The Department for the Environment,  Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) would have had a lot to say about where you can actually put them. The Radio Communications Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) would have had a lot of input about wavebands and licenses. The Treasury would want to know how much it's all going to cost. And then DTI would have had another say where telecommunications is concerned, and so on.
 
Even the height of garden walls is controlled by law, and in conservation areas you can't paint your house without getting the colour approved by the proper authorities. Perhaps you can begin to see why there are so many civil servants.
 
It isn't any different if you live in the country. You may be surrounded by fields and trees but everything in the country is controlled too. Even the air around and above you is covered by legislation which says who can fly in what kind of machine and when and where, and how much factories can and can't pollute it.
 
At present, if you were to wake up tomorrow morning with new super-powers, you could simply leap out of your bedroom window and fly to school. This is because we don't have any laws about super-heroes. Which is because the government doesn't believe there are any. But it wouldn't be long before the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), probably working closely with DEFRA, brought in new legislation called 'The Control of Unmotorised Airborne Youths Who Wear Brightly Coloured Underpants Outside Their Bodystockings Act 2002'.  
 
So, Departments are places where the government's policy is put into action. The policy has to be backed up by law, which is what Parliament does. Once the laws are made they're passed to the Departments, which then do all the paperwork, print the brochures, hire the lorries and so on which make the policies work.
 
As you know, the people who do all this work in the Departments are civil servants. They are not politicians. Civil servants are neutral, which means they put the government's policies into action without being for or against them. A civil servant may have private views about whether a policy is a good or a bad thing but he won't let it affect his job.
 
And of course, a lot of government policies are unpopular with all sorts of people. For example, if the government wanted to ban fox hunting, it would first propose a Bill to do it. This Bill would then have to go through the House of Commons, be looked at by the House of Lords, and finally become law. After it becomes law, there are all sorts of bits of it which civil servants need to put into practice, as well as deal with the effects the new law may have on the rest of the world. For instance, if Scotland doesn't ban fox hunting too, then there'll be problems along the border of England and Scotland. Imagine a legal hunt in Scotland chasing a fox that is clever enough to nip over the border into England where it's illegal.
 
While the anti-fox hunting Bill is going through Parliament, lots of people will write to the government with their views for and against. Someone has to answer these letters, emails faxes and phone calls. And even after the Bill becomes law, there will be a never-ending stream of letters and such like from people complaining about how unfair it is that they can no longer gang up on a small animal and enjoy seeing it torn to pieces buy packs of hounds.
 
Well of course, it's also civil servants who answer all these letters and phone calls.
 
As we've seen, when the government changes the civil servants stay in their Departments. If all the civil servants were changed too, it would be very difficult to run the country. A minister may be in charge of say the Department of Trade and Industry for only a year or two. While he's there, he will have to get to know something about hundreds of different schemes, committees, proposals, laws and so forth. But he will know only the main points. Each of these areas will be covered by a whole team of civil servants, many of whom will have been working on one particular point for years.
 
So it make sense to keep the civil servants when the government changes. At least, that's what they've convinced us is the sensible thing to do.
 
 
 
 
here to edit.

From my journal, 24 February 2015
 
It may be time for me to go blow the whistle to Bryony Keller, the Head of Business Group, just one step down from the Permanent Secretary - about the fact that I'm being forced by senior civil servants to act in breach of the Civil Service Code.
 
I've been in the impossible situation this week of drafting an official government response to the consultation that essentially says, "Job done," but then goes on to add, "We're delaying until April 2016 in order to do more work via BSI." This is being insisted upon by Barbara and John because they think it will solve most of their problems. But I've been trying to get them to see that this means conceding to Sir Ken, etc, that this is 'the right process' which means there is no chance of implementation by April 2016.
 
I had a long talk this morning with Sue [my previous line-manager] who not unreasonably urged me to consider the ramifications. I said I had, and didn't agree with her that walking away would preserve my reputation - because they have already mostly trashed it in defence of their cock-up over the failure to go ahead on time. I also pointed out that whatever I do will create stress anyway. At least this way, I'm doing what's right.
 
Towards the end of the conversation, I asked her how she felt about it all. As I'd guessed, she didn't say she was outraged at management's behaviour; just talked in terms of being worried about me. Then there was one of those chilling moments when her voice went a little auto and she parroted Barbara and John: "But the fact is, Terry, lots of people have said they have concerns and very few retailers have jumped up to say they support the new test." I replied that the retailers are not jumping up because none of them wants to be the first to admit they're selling unsafe products. And the villains are jumping up to voice their objections because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
 
I suspect Steve would simply have said to her, "So, you've been brainwashed, too." [He'd have been right, as it turned out.]
 
In the afternoon, I had a meeting with my union guy, Bob. He said he's never encountered anything like this before, where someone is actually taking on senior management. He warned me that they'll close ranks and use dirty tricks [they did]. He put it to me that I could walk away, although he knows by now that I can't - because that would be the wrong thing to do. He suggested I could consider 'cuddling up' to them, and get them to reconsider from a more together angle. Well, there is no point even considering that with John, since he is bent. Barbara, maybe, but her ego volatility can't really be trusted. Besides, I simply can't see where there's room to compromise with the government response. Essentially, they want me to lie so that the country can remain at risk.
 
When I looked at the Civil Service Code today it all seemed so clear-cut: says that you should report incidents of a Minister being misinformed, etc, and if you're still not satisfied, take it to the Civil Service Commission. Simples!
 
Here is a list of pros and cons about me whistle-blowing:
 
Pros
 

• Conscience clear; integrity intact
• Lives saved
• Environment less polluted
• Our work not trashed
• My family know I've done the right thing
• I keep Steve's respect

 
Cons
 

• Stress: I will be attacked
• Industry might fight even dirtier
• Civil Service career in the bin
• Months of fighting senior management
• Delay my retirement and doing something much more useful

 
I had a realisation this week, which may help towards my inevitable decision - that the quality of one's perception is directly governed by the quality of one's integrity.
 
This is why Steve and I see much more clearly what is really happening and what that will inevitably lead to than anyone else involved in this situation. Their lack of integrity automatically limits their intelligence. Someone once said that intelligence is the ability, in any given situation, to know what needs doing; to have the ability to do it; then to do it, whether you like doing it or not.
 
What needs doing? The Regulations need putting right in order to protect the public. But once you accept a bribe to block them, or to put your CS career first, or decide that you can't afford to risk your pension, then you cease to see that. Which means your integrity is weakened, and you're in a vicious circle of declining perception.
 
John cycles to work every day. Well, he cycles on his fold-up bike a couple of miles from King's Cross station. He wears a football shirt with 'Moore' on the back of it, which might I suppose be an ironic statement of sorts. Then he spends the first hour or so at his desk, in his sweaty - or mock-sweaty - cycle gear. He thinks this gives him some sort of 'street' authenticity. But what everyone actually thinks he is, he's just a twat. How come he lacks insight into this perception of his desperate 'real man' props? Just ask Chemtura, or Albemarle, or ICL.
 
When you lack integrity you don't want to see anything that exposes that fact - which means you simply don't see. The problem is that the Johns, the Barbaras and the Sir Whatsits of the world actually think they have integrity too, hence they don't realise that they lack perception. Which means that if you present them with the conclusions of real perception this happens:
 
a)         They will tell you that it isn't like that; it's like this, and if
 
b)         you go back to show them with more perception that they're actually wrong,
 
c)         at first they won't respond at all; then if you persist, they will
 
d)         seek to destroy you.