Civil servants have an ambivalent attitude towards ministers. Constitutionally, they answer to ministers and their role is to advise, not to decide. But, in practice, they are permanent, while ministers are, in the memorable phrase used about Sir John Nott by the late Sir Robin Day, ‘here today and gone tomorrow’. That is why civil servants privately enjoyed, while publicly deploring, the ‘Yes Prime Minister’ TV series with its picture of the wily Sir Humphrey manipulating Jim Hacker.

But beneath the facade of worldly cynicism which senior civil servants often like to present towards ministers, most officials we interviewed for the Institute for Government’s new report 'The Challenge of Being a Minister’want strong and decisive ministers. Their ideal is someone who has clear objectives and priorities, listens and consults with officials but will then make up their minds. Michael Heseltine topped the list by a long way, particularly amongst civil servants, as the most effective minister.  He is described as a ‘dream minister’ by one, far from starry eyed, former senior civil servant, while another said, he had ‘a magic combination- he managed to do the job without being very high maintenance and having a sense of where he wanted to go’.

By contrast, the  nightmare for many civil servants—and there are all too many examples—are ministers who cannot make up their minds, always want to hear some more advice before putting off decisions.

There is a longstanding, but ultimately futile, debate about how far ministers should manage their departments. Many of the characteristics of the most effective minister involve good management—such as being able to lead and mobilise a team ( both of ministers and officials), to set priorities and to ensure the implementation of reform programmes. But what ministers are not qualified to do is to seek to administer or micro-manage their departments- not least because very few have any experience at the top of large organisations, whether in the private or public sectors.

Effective ministers are also willing to take personal responsibility for what happens—whether the result of policy decisions or just random adverse events that can affect any department. By contrast, the ineffective blame everyone but themselves. Much of this is about personal self-confidence and being at ease with themselves.

No one can do much about these personal flaws, apart from not appointing ministers with
them. What we examined in the report was how to help ministers become more effective and to increase the number of effective ministers. Among the 14 recommendations are reducing the number of reshuffles of choice ( as opposed to those forced by scandals or policy disagreement) to ensure greater stability in office; continuing to appoint some outsiders with experience elsewhere as Lords ministers ( the Goats) provided they develop the necessary political and media skills; more active preparation of potential ministers by Opposition parties; continuous development when in office; and regular appraisal and advice on performance. 

And the civil service can do a lot to help ministers, not least by understanding more about their parliamentary and political responsibilities.

At present, ministers are too often loners who sink or swim without any help- unlike what happens elsewhere in the public sector and in the private sector. This is absurd. Ministers can be helped to be more effective.

Peter Riddell is a senior fellow of the Institute for Government and co-author of The Challenge of Being a Minister- Defining and developing ministerial effectiveness.

Written by Peter Riddell, IFG