A new take on how to rewire the state

Makeham’s central point is that government is organised for the benefit of government itself, not for the needs of citizens and society. That leads him to some radical conclusions. Far more devolution and decentralisation, alongside enforceable accountability. More dramatically, an end to government departments, to be replaced by ‘groups’ and ‘systems’, but with a separate ‘department for delivery’ to manage performance and oversee significant operational organisations. A new strategic centre to set priorities and outcomes for government. 

He also – in line with longstanding IfG recommendations – calls for clearer accountability in the civil service, especially for reforming and building capability.

It is the right time to explore these ideas

Some of his proposals might, if pursued, fall by the wayside, or create new and different barriers inside government. For example it is hard to see how a separate ‘department for delivery’ might be able to oversee operations and services across the vast range of government activity. But it is this sort of ambitious and radical thinking that is needed if ministers are serious about rewiring the state.

Mission-driven government is looking shaky, especially with old habits having asserted themselves during the spending review, which should have been the main mechanism for making change happen. Ministers and civil servants have not so far really grappled with the structural and personnel changes that are needed to break down barriers and properly galvanise central government around citizens and places. Even more importantly, Starmer’s catch phrase of ‘mission-led government’ has done almost nothing to change the culture of departments.

Whether it is along Makeham’s lines, or something else – as we have recommended for the centre of government – a radical structural change would not in itself change the cultural settings that impede collaboration and high performance in government. But it might just jolt the system enough to create a window for real change. And while getting rid of the departmental structures in Whitehall seems at first sight outlandish, it is no more radical than their creation in the first place at the end of the 19th century, or the expansion of the state after the Second World War.

Change must come at the centre of government – and outside of it

Reform efforts must touch every level of government, but setting a bold vision from the centre is essential. As we have argued, successive governments are desperately in need of a smaller but more powerful centre to set direction. Makeham agrees with our recommendation for a small strategic group of cabinet ministers to agree and oversee the government’s programme. This government took small steps towards that in announcing its ‘Plan for Change’ last year, but it is far from clear who is overseeing its implementation.

Another recommendation from our work on the centre that Makeham picks up is to improve the accountability for working with external stakeholders. The government was making some progress here, which has been set back by the damaging new guidance restricting public officials from engaging with charities, trade bodies, academics and civil society. Collaboration is essential, and this government says that it wants more of it. Ministers should empower their officials to work with the widest variety of interests and representatives.

Workers in frontline public services also need to be empowered. The suffocating weight of the centre – to the extent, as Makeham says, that “central government decisions make the front line write everything down”, should be lifted, to allow professionals to take decisions that meet the complex needs of the people they are serving.

As Makeham says “there is an almost natural tendency for separately defined bodies not to cooperate with other bodies”. This means that unless there are very strong incentives – money, or political accountability – to work across silos or to reach out beyond consultation comfort zones, it will not happen.

Starmer should look past a tricky first year and to the future

The government’s first anniversary was accompanied by a feeling of frustration and gloom rather than excitement and optimism. That does not have to be the case for its second, third and fourth. But change is needed. Ministers need to take hold of the machinery of the state and prove that it can work for them. The ideas in this paper could, if pursued with enough conviction, help it do just that.