When facing a policy puzzle, civil servants shouldn’t see trade associations as adversaries. As former trade body chair Sir Mark Boleat explains, they can be a useful resource for the savvy official
The civil service is under pressure as never before. Substantial staff cuts have significantly reduced capacity, and on top of this Brexit has imposed a massive workload on a number of departments.
But the civil service always adapts. Doing less is one option – even if this means trying to manage some wilder political ideas that are doomed to failure but cannot be allowed to be seen to fail just yet.
Clever outsourcing is another solution. And really clever outsourcing is doing it without paying. Many businesses are a long way down this path. Petrol stations have outsourced manning the pumps to drivers, supermarket customers are now their own check out staff, and airlines have outsourced printing tickets to their customers.
RELATED CONTENT
Some government agencies are also adopting this approach – particularly the regulators who make clever use of their powers to force regulated business to commission expensive studies, which can be justified from the point of view of the business, but have the added advantage of effectively outsourcing part of the supervisory process to a consultant paid for by the regulated organisation.
Section 195 of the Banking Act 2009 is a good example. Under this legislation, the Bank of England can require a regulated payment system to commission a report, which will help the bank in its supervisory role. Properly used, this is a helpful tool for both the bank and the sector. It can help the regulated institution by providing useful analysis and persuading the members to fund such a report (because they have no choice) when it might otherwise be unable to.
Sadly for them, most civil servants do not work under legislation which gives them this power. But with a bit of imagination a good civil servant can go some of the way towards it.
The best trade associations have always been allies of good civil servants. Their regulatory and legal staff, for example, can often provide a useful assistance in carefully scrutinising lengthy legal documents so as to ensure they achieve their desired purpose.
But for this to happen there must be a sound basis of trust between the civil servant and the trade association official. Once this is established then co-operation is a win-win for policymaking and the industry. To some this might seem a little too cosy, since many assume that the industry is constantly trying to frustrate the wishes of the government. While this may be the case occasionally, it is not the normal position. Generally, industry and government have same agenda once policy is settled – to ensure that it works, and at minimum cost.
Associations and officials can work together in the pursuit of good policymaking. I can recall a few messages from officials along the following lines: “Our minister has had another daft idea. Can you please be robust and say this is rubbish.” Or, “It would be really helpful if you could send the minister a letter saying that your members would rather pay higher fees to help us be better resourced. I have a draft here.” Or, “The minister is influenced by the number of representations he receives – quality is irrelevant. So please get all your members to write individually.”
Conversely, I’ve seen a few messages from trade association executives to officials along these lines: “Please excuse the letter to the minister from my chair. This is aimed purely at the members. Ignore it.” Or, “My chair thinks I am not doing my job unless he has a meeting with the minister in the next few weeks. Otherwise he is a good chair. Can you please arrange a non-meeting”?
Not all trade associations are effective.
In some case they lack the resources necessary to do their job; in other cases they have the resources but use them badly.
Civil servants should not regard themselves as takers of whatever trade association structure exists in the sectors that they deal with. With a few simple steps they can significantly improve the quality of trade associations – to the benefit of themselves and the sector.
The first prerequisite is to fully understand the nature of the trade associations purporting to represent the sector. Some associations are remarkably coy about their membership, and some are little more than the mouthpiece of a single company or even a single person.
Civil servants, particularly those new to a sector, should ensure that they fully understand the trade association landscape. Asking for full details of membership and a serious estimate of the extent to which a sector is represented is a good start. And quickly assessing which associations are good and which are not can pay dividends. The good civil servant knows whose representations are worth reading and whose can be safely sent to the trash folder. A high quality representation from a tiny trade association, or even an individual, is worth more than rubbish from a trade association with 100% industry coverage.
But this is where the clever civil servant can improve the position. It is not difficult to put pressure on a bad association to improve. Many bad associations have bad chief executives. To address this, we need to understand the dynamics of trade associations. They have a transient board – made up of business leaders – and a chair (also a business leader) who has other priorities and may not even be aware of the employment terms of the chief executive. As a result, a bad chief executive can stay in office for years. A minister or senior civil servant having a quiet word with the chair of the association or the chief executive of the largest member can work wonders.
The script should be along the lines of: “Your sector does a good job and there are some good people in the trade association. But the association as a whole is ineffective, producing poor quality evidence and adopting an unhelpful stance in talking with us. As a result, your sector is not getting the policy outcomes it needs. We are willing to help but cannot do so until you sort out the association. Frankly, your chief executive is not up to it. You could do much better.”
I know from experience that this is often sufficient, helping to crystallize thoughts that already existed and accelerating what would have eventually happened anyway – but perhaps too late.
Civil servants should also be asking for evidence to back up assertions and questioning submissions. You may think a submission does not do justice to the arguments it is making: “This submission is not up to your usual standard and will embarrass you if it remains in its present form. I have marked some points. Can you take it away and have another think before you finally submit it?”
Short of this, a few simple questions can be very effective, such as: “You have said that it is clear that... could you let us have the evidence on this?” Or: “You have said our analysis is faulty. Can we have a detailed critique next week?”
Departments could also try the regulator approach, if neither organisation has enough evidence to support policymaking: “Your evidence on this is thin and we do not have any research ourselves. KPMG has done some work in this area. It would be really helpful if you could commission them or another consultancy to do a detailed study. We would be happy to give advice on the terms of reference and to give whatever help we can to the consultant.”
Finally, consider rewarding the “good associations” with ministerial acceptance of invitations to events and emollient words – assuming the minister is of the sort who is wanted at events.
Conversely, studiously ignore the bad associations. A note of caution when it comes to association events.
Try not to use standard words at each one.
I recall a bizarre event when a minister praised a trade association chief executive – even crediting him with a knighthood – at a reception just two hours after the executive had been told that he was being fired.
These sorts of tactics may not work at all in some circumstances. But they are virtually costless and in most cases will produce a mutually beneficial effect for the association and the government machinery.