The revelation in The Spectator last week that the Treasury is more concerned with boosting its DEI outcomes than hiring people who can count, was – for those who have served in our blessed civil service – shocking but not surprising. But the truth is that this numeracy story is not a wacky aberration or an isolated case. It is, to quote Dominic Cummings, ‘the system working as intended’. Let me explain.
The dominance of DEI ideology in recruitment to some of the most powerful roles in the state has long roots, going back to the Blair era. As I’ve reported before, the main graduate internship scheme for the civil service excluded middle-class white applicants until very recently. But BLM further deranged the mandarin mind.
This is an absurd way to run the state, and the absurdity has consequences
The collective hysteria over the unfortunate death of a man in faraway Minneapolis was not, of course, limited to the public sector. Who can forget the absurd spectacle of companies and individuals performatively posting blacked out squares on social media, with accompanying messages like ‘We stand together with our black colleagues and customers’ (Sainsbury’s). But the public sector embraced the BLM age with unparalleled fervour.
I recall that in June 2020 the Foreign Office’s most senior decision-making body, ExCo, was busy considering a paper on how it should respond to what it described as the ‘growing concerns’ around George Floyd’s death. Naturally their deliberations were to be guided by the presentation they would receive from representatives of the ‘FCO Bame Network’ – one tentacle of a sprawling beast with equivalent groupings across Whitehall. All were supported by the ‘Civil Service Race Forum’ that furnished them with statements and resources they could draw upon in lobbying senior management in every government department.
Little wonder that the next day, the permanent under-secretary held a rare all-staff meeting where he addressed the workforce on ‘Black Lives Matter and the FCO response’. Needless to say, this sort of thing was happening all over Whitehall at the time and spawned much madness in the vein of the Treasury’s ditching of its numeracy test.
But while this is undoubtedly a story of woke absurdity, it is also a story about the total disregard – even scorn – shown for department-relevant skills and subject-matter knowledge in Whitehall. The truth us, the Treasury more often than not doesn’t care very much about your numeracy. They care that you are an ‘empathetic leader’ or can spout off some good examples of ‘changing and improving’. Once you properly understand how civil service recruitment works this all becomes clear as day. If applying to a policy job at, say, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), you are often not expected to have any knowledge of farming or nature or any other environmental issue. Indeed, having any such knowledge probably won’t help you land a role.
Likewise, you are not expected to have ever run or even worked in a private sector business when applying to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). Nor have any knowledge of trade whatsoever. Having deep subject matter knowledge when you apply may even count against you (you are likely to be told you have pigeon-holed yourself and lack the required ‘breadth’ of experience).
This stuff sounds like parody, or at least exaggeration for effect. It is not. Tamara Finkelstein, a former permanent secretary at Defra, said she was the first person ever – in a centuries old role – to recruit a qualified accountant to be the ‘Treasury Accountant’ when she was at HMT. And when she brought in a new requirement for finance directors in Whitehall departments to have some sort of formal finance qualification the change was hugely controversial and strenuously resisted by the blob.
The best illustration I can offer consists in taking a look at a few job adverts currently posted to Civil Service Jobs. Take, for example the ‘Head of AI for Local Growth’ job currently being advertised by DSIT. Amongst the essential criteria for applicants is ‘a commitment to supporting the team’s development and contributing to an inclusive, positive working environment’ while ‘AI and / or skills expertise’ is relegated to merely ‘desirable’.
The official Civil Service Commission guidance makes clear that ‘desirable criteria are only used in the event of a strong field of candidates, and as a second stage after essential criteria have been considered. Desirable criteria can be used when there is a need to distinguish between candidates who are closely tied or the same after the initial consideration of essential criteria.’ In other words, the ‘essential’ criteria are what really matter.
Almost every policy role, from junior ones to the most senior positions in the civil service, are much the same. ‘Interest or experience in the semiconductor sector’ is non-essential in the relatively junior ‘Semiconductor Policy Advisor’ role DSIT are currently advertising. For the senior official being recruited to deliver the transition to Great British Rail, ‘knowledge and experience of working in the rail sector’ is judged to be non-essential, as is ‘knowledge and experience of corporate structure design and delivery’. But ‘outstanding communication skills’ is something the Department for Transport will not go without. Quangos are the same as government departments: ‘Energy sector knowledge’ is deemed non-essential for the new CEO of Ofgem currently being recruited.
This is an absurd way to run the state, and the absurdity has consequences. A couple of months ago, the Treasury advertised for a senior position in charge of Debt and Reserves Management and stipulated that an ‘understanding of financial markets’ was not a non-negotiable as this expertise could ‘be developed in the role.’ But it was key that the successful candidate could, ‘show a clear commitment to promoting diversity, inclusion and belonging’. The role’s responsibilities included sponsorship of National Savings and Investments (NS&I) and acting as the Treasury’s representation on NS&I’s Audit and Risk Committee. It is perhaps little surprise that NS&I were recently forced to admit that £500 million in customer savings had gone missing.
The Treasury giving up testing for numeracy is the least of it. The Civil Service writ large has abandoned demanding subject-matter expertise. Nothing will improve until we fix this.
Comments