A partially-reformed Civil Service

Discussion about the Civil Service has heated up recently – with debates in Lords and the Commons, and with the formation of new cross-party group GovernUp. All that is good and the Institute for Government welcomes the broadening of the public debate on themes we have long addressed such as improving capability, commercial skills and accountability. We have suggested practical improvements in these areas, as well as on the workings of the coalition, transitions, managing markets, policy making and arm’s-length bodies, and hope that political parties, civil servants, think tanks and others will draw on them in their post-2015 thinking. These questions, about the role of ministers as well as of civil servants, can no longer be dismissed as something only a few people care about. They are central to the prospects of the next government. It is vital, however, to be clear where we are now. Too many on the Tory right – and some on the left – talk about the Civil Service as the last great unreformed public service or British institution as if nothing has happened in the last few years. The fictional Sir Humphrey is invariably invoked as an obstructive bogey man, rather forgetting that the heyday of ‘Yes Minister’ was more than 30 years ago. Nick Herbert and John Healey, the ex-ministers and founders of GovernUp, need to be careful to avoid fostering this myth. The reality is different, as was recognised not least by Francis Maude, the Civil Service Minister, and by other speakers in a more forward looking debate in the Commons than the one held in the Lords last month. The Civil Service is not risk averse or a force for inertia. Much has changed in Whitehall, both before, and especially since 2010. There has been an unprecedented cut in numbers of civil servants – on course for a reduction of a fifth by May 2015 – and far-reaching restructuring in many departments. There have been welcome and overdue initiatives to improve the running of major projects, procurement, digital services, and in contract management and commissioning (where the IfG believes that performance is very patchy and much more needs to be done). The real worry – expressed by Bernard Jenkin and Margaret Hodge, amongst others in the Commons debate – is whether the changes have made Whitehall better able to address the demands of a continuing age of austerity, or whether they need to go much further. In our recent report, ‘Leading Change in the Civil Service’, we said ‘the current trajectory of reform is insufficient if the Civil Service is to rise to the challenge of confidently supporting a new government after a second major spending review and beyond’. This will involve stronger collective leadership and civil service leaders working together to plan ahead for the inevitable cuts in the next spending review, particularly to work across departmental boundaries. It is increasingly clear from the IfG’s work – and to many insiders privately – that deeper questions about the structure of government need to be addressed. The Government’s public stance can appear ambivalent, accepting in a recent response to the Liaison Committee of the Commons, that ‘reforms recently or currently being introduced will inevitably take time to have effect’. But there is a reluctance to acknowledge, or discuss, the need for a radically different approach in the next parliament. Mrs Hodge revealed correspondence from senior civil servants rejecting proposals for central direction and integration – ‘the government machine is not like a holding company dominating its subsidiaries from a corporate centre’. This tension with the traditional federal structure of strong departments is unresolved. That is why a wider debate is welcome. The proposed Parliamentary Commission on the Civil Service, backed by Mr Jenkin, the Liaison Committee of select committee chairs and by many leading peers including some former Cabinet Secretaries, now looks unlikely to make progress in face of divisions among MPs, as well as the Government’s opposition and Labour’s coolness. But the future role and structure of Whitehall – and indeed of the state generally – should still be discussed before the election. However, clichés about Sir Humphrey need to be abandoned. They obscure what has already happened and the difficult challenges ahead.