Civil service reform. We rarely hear about it on the doorstep. But we hear very clearly the consequences of an ineffective Whitehall machine, and strained public services.
That is why, even in the run-up to a tightly fought general election, Labour must not cede the ground on reform of the state. In 2015, Britain needs a new government, but it also needs a new way of governing.
Labour has a special duty to ensure that government is as effective as possible. We believe in the power of the state to transform lives for the better – from the NHS, to the minimum wage to support for regional development. If we fail to demonstrate that we can wield the power of government well, we undermine taxpayer and voter support for public services and public enterprise.
So it is because of my Labour values, not despite them, that last year I co-founded GovernUp as a new, cross-party thinktank on civil service and government reform. This month we launched our interim proposals.
We have an unprecedented opportunity to agree on how to make government work better. For the first time since the second world war, all three major parties have current or recent experience in office. All understand the importance of good policy. All know that the effectiveness of the policy delivery machine is also vital. And all see the flaws.
GovernUp is making the most of this moment to build a wide consensus on must-make reforms. A number of common themes emerge from the work so far.
First,the centre of government needs to be strengthened. A more unified strategic core for government, ‘One Whitehall’, could be developed by turning the headquarters functions of the civil service into a single organisation, built around the government’s priorities, and breaking down departmental boundaries. An Office of Budget and Management, combining functions from the Treasury and Cabinet Office could drive effectiveness and value for money across Whitehall.
Second, government needs do much more at a local level. A landmark Decentralisation Act would enshrine a presumption that services should be delivered locally, reducing the ability of central government to influence the day-to-day management of local government in important areas, with more public spending controlled locally.
Third, we have to improve the public accountability of government. One way to do this is to turn the operational parts of the civil service into autonomous public service agencies. And I’ would like to see the chief executives of essential agencies like JobCentre Plus, Environment Agency or Border Force appointed by ministers and subject to full confirmation hearings by House of Commons select committees, to get them answering to the public and parliament from the start.
Fourth, leadership and skills across government are not good enough – in civil servants and ministers. More specialisation and, in some cases, better remuneration is required for the civil service which needs to learn from the best of both public and private sectors. And unlike the last five years, future reform must involve the civil service workforce and unions. For ministers, the coaching or mentoring which is commonplace in other organisations should be expected for them too. And both ministers and top officials would benefit from longer periods in post.
Fifth, since ministers are ultimately accountable as the elected part of our government system they need the resources to ensure that their policies are delivered. Extended ministerial offices could provide more experienced and better qualified teams to support ministers, without politicising Whitehall. There would be strict restrictions on party political work but greater scope to seek policy advice from outside Whitehall.
I hope that these proposals are not the end but the start of a wider conversation on the centre-left about how we govern better. An incoming Labour government this May will have an ambitious policy programme to implement; we have an opportunity – and a duty – to provide a programme for government itself to match.
———————————
John Healey MP is co-founder of GovernUp. He tweets @JohnHealey_MP
———————————
John Healey is right that “Labour must not cede the
ground on reform of the state. In 2015, Britain needs a new government, but it
also needs a new way of governing”.
Labour will be
faced by a clique of privately-educated men (mostly men), Whitehall’s Permanent
Secretaries. Only 7% of children are educated privately (41% of Lib Dem
MPs and 52% of Tories were; Labour comes closest to reflecting the nation with
10% of MPs privately educated.) Using just Google and Wikipedia
(i.e., without accessing Linked-In, Who’s Who or Dod’s on Line) it’s a bit
harder to look into the education of Perm Secs; their biogs on Government
websites notably omit schooling. Wikipedia says that 40 people have Perm Sec
status but this includes posts such as Chief Scientific Adviser, the head of
HMRC, and the Permanent heads of the devolved administrations. But the results
are chilling. Of the 40, it seems that only four went to non-private schools including
selective grammars and academies. (It was five, but Sharon White has departed
the Treasury to head up Ofcom). None
attended comprehensives. 15 definitely went to public school including all
those in Treasury and the Cabinet office. 16 went Oxford, six to Cambridge
(what went wrong, Cambridge?)
Successive PMs
of both parties and many Ministers have found top officials willing, cheerful,
thoughtful and helpful, but political memoirs are also replete with stories of
Permanent Secretaries outwitting Ministers and blocking policy. The top Civil
service will not easily yield the power to inflict their restricted world view.
Checks and
balances are important. But if we are worried about elected Parliamentarians, what
of the background of the Mandarins? Permanent Secretaries, at the top, set the
ethos of the Civil Service; their restricted educational background makes even
Tories look diverse. This is the state needing reform.