The British government’s strategy concerning Rwanda seems to be heading down a troublesome path, and as it falters, fingers are pointing towards the civil service. In times of political distress, it’s common for governments to seek a scapegoat within the civil service, a convenient target that cannot easily defend itself.
The Rwanda initiative neatly fits into this narrative. It’s a contentious policy by any measure, acknowledged even by its most ardent supporters. Beyond moral debates surrounding this policy, there lie practical concerns: Is it feasible? Is it lawful? Will it provide value for the money invested? It falls on the civil service to navigate through these complexities alongside ministers.
During the recent appearance of Matthew Rycroft, the Home Office permanent secretary, before the home affairs select committee, there were strong indications that the government’s legal counsel had warned about potential success in at least one of the numerous legal challenges against the scheme. Ministers would have been briefed on these challenges. Yet, when faced with failure, senior government figures resorted to blaming the advisors, insinuating that objections were raised simply because officials “disliked” the policy. This is a cowardly move. Supporters of the scheme swiftly embraced this narrative, dismissing advice from the government’s legal department as “guff,” as highlighted by Conservative MP Neil O’Brien. Subsequently, Rycroft was summoned to the public accounts committee to explain the surge in costs from £140m to £290m.
Contrary to proving that the civil service impedes government decisions, the Rwanda debacle highlights that the civil service has diligently performed its duties. It’s probable that civil servants forewarned ministers about this predicament – precisely what the civil service exists to do.
Civil servants, like everyone else, hold their political and moral stances. However, they understand the necessity of leaving these views at the door when they step into their roles. Those within the Home Office comprehend that dealing with controversial policies is part of their job, irrespective of the ruling party. Yet, genuine doubts linger about whether the Rwanda scheme will achieve its intended purpose: deterring those arriving in the UK via small boats. When it was initiated, the permanent secretary demanded ministerial direction, a formal instruction to proceed with a spending proposal because there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the anticipated outcome—reducing asylum seekers—would materialize. The lack of evidence couldn’t justify the use of taxpayers’ money. Ministers can disregard this absence of evidence, but it’s the duty of civil servants to highlight it.
The Home Office is likely frustrated by the extensive resources allocated to a policy destined for failure, especially when other projects of equal public importance suffer due to this diversion. It falls upon civil servants to present this dilemma to ministers: Are there alternatives that could achieve the same objectives? Are crucial government priorities being overlooked? Making decisions is an integral part of governance, and in the current financial landscape, ministers opt to allocate an unspecified amount of money to a scheme that has yet to yield anything substantial except for media headlines. Undoubtedly, this comes at the expense of other policy areas or their effective implementation. Blaming civil servants for the consequences of flawed political choices reflects not only a weakness in the policy but also in the ministers themselves.
