Liz Truss, the Civil Service & Banning Cigarettes

Liz Truss is in the news today for two reasons: the publication of her book and her criticism of her successor’s decision to ban the sale of cigarettes to those who are currently 15 or younger. Despite the reaction of the ‘commentariat’, there is some sense in what she is saying.

It is now 15 years since Liz Truss (then known as Elizabeth) was a Deputy Director of the Reform Think Tank. She then co-authored an interesting report recommending far-reaching civil service reform. Her co-authors were two other Reform employees and a prominent Fabian. Their report, Fit for Purpose?, made a number of recommendations including greater accountability for civil servants (see Annex below).  This foreshadowed similar recommendations made many years later, including in Jonathan Slater’s influential paper Fixing Whitehall's Broken Policy Machine. 

The problem with the 2009 report, as with her book and just about every other civil service reform proposal, is that its recommendations run up against the obstacle of the current ‘Westminster Model’ relationship between Civil Servants, Ministers and Parliament. Future Ministers always say that they will welcome open, expert and impartial advice. But they often hate it when, in office, that advice suggests problems with their policies. And they hate it even more if the advice threatens to become public. That’s why Ms Truss sacked the Treasury’s Tom Scholar and would have liked to get rid of the Governor of the Bank of England and the OBR.

One way forward would be for Parliament to become less adversarial and better at scrutinising the Minister/Civil Servant policy making team. It has been offered mechanisms such as Accounting Officer Assessments but, as my recent book demonstrates, MPs have failed to take these seriously. Maybe back bencher Liz Truss will lead a mini-revolution within Parliament?

---

I also have some sympathy for Liz Truss’ scepticism about the ban on the sale of cigarettes to those currently 15 or younger.

As far as I can tell, it would be an excellent policy (a) if it is properly and strongly enforced right from the beginning, and (b) if in 20 years time it will be easy for shopkeepers to distinguish 35 year olds from 36 year olds.

My fear is that there will be ineffective enforcement in the early days (due to resource constraints (there are already far too few Trading Standards Officers) and delays in the judicial system) which will mean the law is so often contravened that it becomes unenforceable. E-scooters and e-bikes anyone? (Especially on pavements).

And will the middle-aged in due course have to produce ID whenever they want to indulge their nicotine addiction?

Further Reading

I am no fan of Liz Truss but I do think that it would be a very good thing if there could be a more grown up relationship between officials, Ministers and Parliament. I have explored the main issues in Civil Servants, Ministers and Parliament and in Speaking Truth to Power.

And my extensive online library contains Reform’s 2009 report and (far too) many other reports recommending reform of the civil service and wider Whitehall.

Martin Stanley

ANNEX

The main 2009 recommendations in Fit for Purpose? were:

• Democratic accountability provides the best means to hold senior civil servants to account. Democratically elected politicians should have the power to appoint senior civil servants.

• The doctrine of Ministerial responsibility should be abolished. It not only shields officials from taking personal responsibility for their actions but also draws Ministers into the process of delivery. Instead, Ministers should be responsible for the strategic direction of policy and its communication. Officials should be personally responsible for the construction of policy and the use of resources.

• All Civil Service vacancies should be advertised openly. Discrimination in favour of “internal” over “external” candidates and the system of grades should be abolished. Recruitment led by individual line managers should supersede centrally approved appointments; what matters is the quality and cost of appointees. Reform of this kind would see a much greater flow of personnel between the private, voluntary and public sectors, and the recruitment of officials with direct experience in the policy areas that they cover.

• Civil servants need to act as if their every decision is open to scrutiny. Select Committees should call a much greater range of officials to give evidence.

• All political parties should make Civil Service reform a reality of their shared commitment to localism. At present Whitehall too often claims responsibility for parts of national life – healthcare, education, policing and so on – for which it is simply too remote to be the most effective change agent.