Sure, the Treasury can be irritating – but Liz Truss’s approach is all wrong

The challenges we face are as grave as any we’ve seen for a generation, and we could do without the internal squabbling, writes Salma Shah

The impartiality of the civil service has to be protected (Reuters)

Sorry, but the fact is that everyone hates the Treasury. OK, hate is perhaps a little strong, but if you’re a minister or a civil servant in any other government department you have felt the painful sting of His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) curtailing your vision with its miserly worship of the scorecard and its twice-annual bean-counting exercise, otherwise known as the Budget.

So it’s unsurprising that Liz Truss got rid of the permanent secretary Tom Scholar. The smug condescension you get when the Treasury pours cold water over your plans and the audacity of making you look at the numbers underpinning them can be a scarring experience. Nevertheless, his removal was wrong.

Strong and fair government is based on the strength of our institutions. It is a defining factor of what makes us a good bet in the marketplace; it underpins a stable system. That, in many cases, comes above even individual fiscal decisions.

This was brought home to me recently through the Chandler Good Government Index, which highlights the strength of institutions when they consider their rankings. The UK is at a respectable number 10 on the list, but in order to maintain or improve this position we have to think carefully about what our actions say to the rest of the world.

“Treasury orthodoxy” is undeniably frustrating, and we should make a habit of challenging the status quo when the issues we face require more creative solutions. Sometimes it is difficult to jolt HMT out of its natural habitat of small “c” fiscal conservatism and aversion to risk – but that’s no bad thing.

And it isn’t the hindrance people claim. A former Treasury adviser once told me that the Treasury is basically an extended ministerial private office: it has an institutional view, but essentially works to whatever the chancellor of the day wants. It provides impartial advice based on the facts and, if there is a decision to drive it in a different direction, then it complies. Kwasi Kwarteng should learn from his predecessors, who moulded the place in their own images. No one was in any doubt when George Osborne or Gordon Brown were in charge that the department worked for them.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Decapitating the department won’t change the culture. Civil servants multiply like gremlins – more will take the place of the ones you’ve axed. It’s like fighting Game of Thrones’ white walkers – they just keep coming! It’s better to have an argument than a fight and get to a good decision, rather than make a statement with what, from the outside, can be seen as petty recrimination.

No one will find it motivating that one of their respected leaders has been given the chop for spurious reasons. The situation demands maturity and rising above personality clashes, otherwise it risks demoralising hard-working and clever people, who will give up and go. That would be a terrible outcome.

The impartiality of the civil service has to be protected. That requires the civil service to ensure that it does, in fact, give impartial advice and seriously attempts to consider views at odds with its infamous “orthodoxy”. But a little trust has to be shown by both sides – some goodwill, to mend the fractures. The challenges we face are as grave as any we’ve seen for a generation, and we could do without the internal squabbling, however irritating the Treasury can be.