Frank Stacey Memorial Lecture, 1987: Civil Servants and their Ministers
| Author | Geoffrey Marshall |
| Published date | 01 January 1988 |
| Date | 01 January 1988 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/095207678800300109 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
4
Frank
Stacey
Memorial
Lecture,
1987:
Civil
Servants
and
their
Ministers
Geoffrey
Marshall,
Queen’s
College
Abstract
This
paper
suggests
that the
accepted
textbook
views
on
minister
and
civil
servant
relations
rest
on
vague
references
in
the
traditional
sources.
These
gaps
have
not
been
filled
by
the
recent
Parliamentary
Report
and
Government
statements.
Civil
Servants
may
have
some
duty
to
serve
the
public
interest.
This
duty
may
be
distinguishable
from
their
service
to
a
particular
department.
This
public
interest
defence
might
be
relevant
to
the
Spy
Catcher
case.
The
Civil
Service
is
a
mysterious
thing.
Its
Head
has
said
that
it
has
no
consti-
tutional
personality
and
there
is
some
doubt
about
its
legal
identity.
We
know
that
it
consists
of
officials
paid
out
of
monies
voted
by
Parliament.
But
we
are
told
by
H.M.G.
that,
’There
is
in
law
no
universally
applicable
definition
of
a
civil
servant’.1
1
They
add
that
the
most
important
distinguishing
characteristic
of
civil
servants
is
service
on
behalf
of
the
Crown.
But
that,
alas,
does
not
uniquely
distinguish
them
from
others
who
carry
out
services
or
functions
on
behalf
of
the
Crown
or
who
are
even
officers
or
servants
of
the
Crown
(such
as
Health
Service
employees,
police-
men,
judges
or
Mrs
Thatcher).
Their
political
neutrality
and
permanence
seems
also
not
to
be
a
matter
of
law
or
legal
definition
but
of
convention
or
custom.
Sir
William
Anson
remarked
that
it
is
impossible
to
read
Swift’s
diary
or
the
letters
of
Bolingbroke
without
seeing
that
the
American
maxim -
’the
spoils
to
the
victor’
was
very
present
to
the
minds
of
the
Tory
party
in
the
reign
of Anne.2
It
would
be
perfectly
legal,
he
said,
for
an
incoming
minister
to
obtain
from
the
Crown
as
a
proof
of
confidence
the
dismissal
of
every
civil
servant
who
holds
his
office
during
pleasure.
Fortunately
it
would
nowadays
be
against
constitutional
convention
and
even
perhaps
lead
to
proceedings
under
the
Employment
Protection
(Consolidation)
Act
1978..
As
a
breach
of
practice
it
would
at
least
be
difficult
though
of
course
practice
can
be
changed
by
a
determined
government.
(As
that resolute
non-
permanent
public
servant
Henry
Kissinger
once
said,
’The
illegal
we
can
do
immedi-
ately.
The
unconstitutional
takes
a
little
longer’).
The
relationship
of
civil
servants
with
ministers,
Anson
pointed
out,
is
deter-
mined
in
part
by
statute
(which
disables
them
from
sitting
in
the
House
of
To continue reading
Request your trial