We began this discussion with an account of an argument presented in 1953 in which an attempt was made to draw similarities between the state and the corporation. We conclude with the thought that this argument may be more relevant and sustainable 50 years after it was first presented. This is so, not because the state has adopted the corporate form, but because corporate values have penetrated the public sphere. This is seen in what has been referred to as the privatisation of the process of government, not in the sense of government being sold or outsourced to the private sector, but in the sense of government embracing private sector similes, private sector values and private sector methods. We also see the adoption of private sector legal forms which remove some of the unfavourable legal treatment to which civil servants are exposed by virtue of their employment under the royal prerogative. Paradoxically, however, the extension of the contractual model to civil servants actually involves a dilution of rights, as it has the effect of ensuring that judicial review is not available to civil servants alleging an abuse of power by their employers. Having suffered years of legal disadvantage, it appears to have been thought to be a step too far to endow them with legal advantage. Any move in the direction of statutory regulation of the civil service is likely to ensure that any such privilege is avoided. This could be achieved by the simple expedient of providing that employment under the new arrangements is under contract and not otherwise. As we have seen, the government has already signalled that a move in this direction will confirm rather than reverse the trend of assimilating the position of civil servants with that of other workers, which in many cases is one of considerable insecurity and uncertainty.

The prospect of a Civil Service Act is perhaps another example of the privatisation of government and the civil service. Although — as suggested — it is not a compelling indicator of a move in the direction of privatisation, it does nevertheless indicate a move away from regulation by means of the royal prerogative, a peculiarly public law source of authority. Although a Civil Service Act may provide the basis of a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny of government conduct towards the civil service than the regulation by the royal prerogative, it is unlikely to make much practical difference or to reverse the trend of recent developments. It is not to be overlooked that civil servants performed best when operating under public service employment values underpinned by public service legal rules which gave maximum power to the state as employer. The halycon days (if they ever existed) for the civil servant were ones in which there was little law and few enforceable rights — days in which the Crown claimed ‘the right to change its officers’ conditions of service at any time’.^[96] In the days when the prerogative was at its purest (in terms of hiring and firing), collective bargaining was at its most effective. With governments having so enthusiastically embraced private sector methods and values, there are many obstacles to encounter before returning to such an era. But it is a nice lesson about the difference between public and private sector values and practices, and about how formal legal protection is more necessary where the latter rather than the former prevail. The current unrest in the civil service is also an indication that in a modern private sector regime such protection is never likely to be an effective brake on the abuse of power by the state as an employer.