A report by the think tank Re:State has called for a more consistent system for managing poor performance across the Civil Service. Its proposals include annual performance ratings, additional management oversight for officials identified as being in the lowest-performing group, and formal improvement plans lasting between one and three months. Staff who failed to improve could ultimately face dismissal.
The proposal is an argument from a non-government organisation, rather than government policy. Claims that the reforms would automatically lead to the dismissal of the bottom 10 per cent are therefore misleading: the proposed process distinguishes between officials requiring closer supervision and those judged not to meet the required standard.
The Civil Service already operates performance-management procedures. For senior civil servants, the current framework requires an improvement plan where minimum standards are not met or performance is rated “Partially Met” for two consecutive quarters. If performance remains inadequate after a reasonable improvement period—normally no longer than three months—formal poor-performance measures may follow.
The article’s description of Civil Service staffing also requires clarification. Official statistics record 557,825 employees on a headcount basis and 523,795 full-time equivalents on 31 March 2026. The figure of approximately 524,000 therefore refers to full-time-equivalent employment, not the number of individual officials.
The workforce has grown substantially since 2016, although the scale depends on the measure used and the chosen comparison date. The government’s latest statistics also show that 42,855 people joined the Civil Service and 37,945 left during 2025–26. Resignations and retirements were the most common recorded reasons for leaving; the published national bulletin does not establish that most departures resulted from poor performance.
There is evidence that the government intends to change how Whitehall operates, including by strengthening local and regional government. A programme announced in August will initially second between five and ten high-performing civil servants to each mayoral authority for six to nine months. This is a transfer of expertise and capacity, not necessarily a reduction in total Civil Service employment.
Re:State’s proposals have therefore contributed to a wider debate about accountability, workforce size and devolution. Whether they improve public value would depend on reliable performance measures, fair procedures, effective management and safeguards against dismissing staff for reasons unrelated to performance.