As of October, the civil service’s main internship scheme will be restricted to applicants from a working class background. Is this progress? We get two experts to hash it out in this week’s debate
YES: We need to address the myth of meritocracy
The civil service’s working-class internship scheme is a step forward. There’s no doubt that social mobility within the civil service needs to improve. According to the Social Mobility Commission, just 18 per cent of its workforce comes from a working class background. Any initiative that helps ensure the civil service reflects the diverse population it serves should be welcomed.
It’s time we addressed the myth of meritocracy – we don’t just succeed based on our talent and hard work, people rely on their access to education, networks and opportunities, things that if you come from a disadvantaged background are much harder to come by. Schemes like this can help level the playing field.
That said, this isn’t just a recruitment incentive. It’s vital that individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are also given the support to not only ensure they are retained, but also able to rise to leadership positions. To do this, leaders will need to embrace change, understanding that people from different backgrounds when given the right support can excel in roles they previously would never have had the opportunity to even apply for.
Without targeted action, ‘hidden barriers’ will remain. It’s critical that this opportunity to open doors for underrepresented groups is fully capitalised on, and not allowed to become another ‘exclusive club’ under a different name.
Kate Headley is co-founder and CEO of diversity consultancy Clear Company
NO: Appointment should be on the basis of merit, rather than class or patronage.
The decision to restrict civil service internships to those from ‘working class’ backgrounds is bad in principle, bad in practice and bad for the country.
Bad in principle because such discrimination flies in the face of the principles laid down by civil service architects Stafford Northcote and Charles Trevelyan, that appointment and promotion should be on the basis of merit, rather than class or patronage.
Bad in practice, because the definition of ‘working class’ used is farcical. The child of a nurse, a corner-shop owner, a police sergeant or a taxi driver will be barred – while the child of a train driver, electrician or mechanic may apply.
And bad for the country because the civil service will miss out on top talent – and we, as a country, will be worse governed as a result.
Sadly, this is one of many public sector internship schemes that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, class or both – some of which have operated for decades. Some argue it is acceptable to discriminate when appointing interns, in order to attract talent. But these internships are valuable in their own right: they develop skills, grant valuable CV material, and offer a fast-tracked route to the job itself. While old-fashioned class warfare may be better than wokery, neither is a patch on meritocracy.
If the civil service truly wishes to seek out the best talent wherever it is found, it should drop the graduate-bar for the Fast Stream and open it to anyone who can pass the tests, regardless of prior qualifications. Now that would be a reform worthy of Northcote and Trevelyan.
Iain Mansfield is director of research at Policy Exchange and a former senior civil servant
THE VERDICT
As of October, the civil service’s main internship programme will be restricted to applicants from lower socio-economic backgrounds in a drive to up diversity. Keir Starmer previously stated that “too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”, but will the government’s new scheme really change that?
Mr Mansfield objects on the principles of meritocracy, but Ms Headley is right to challenge this: we do not live in a utopian society where merit always equals success, so some intervention should be allowed.
That being said, the particular parameters of this scheme perhaps feel a little crude, as Mr Mansfield outlines. Moreover, restricting the entire scheme to class boundaries, rather than ringfencing a set number of places, feels like an overcorrection.