Finding the office of the Civil Service Workforce Reform Team is not a straightforward task: it’s a Cabinet Office team, but based in the Treasury, and I found my way there by following signs for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport – which also now shares the offices. It turns out that the building has two addresses: one side is 1 Horse Guards Road, while the other is 100 Parliament Street.
Once inside, things don’t get much easier. “It is a bit of a confusing building to work out,” says Adrian Dottridge, the executive director of civil service workforce reform – whose generalised enthusiasm applies even to getting slightly lost. “It’s got lots of symmetry, which means you can come up in a random corridor and think: ‘OK, where am I? Am I in the north side of the building, or the south? Am I in 100 Parliament Street, or 1 Horse Guards?”
Dottridge’s field of work is just as convoluted and multi-faceted as his physical location. He’s in charge of implementing the government’s new pensions scheme – which he describes as a “complicated reform programme” – as well as reforms to civil service terms and conditions which, he admits, “may appear confusing on the outside”. His team’s remit also covers civil service pay: another complex field, thanks to varying departmental salary levels, wage caps, the Cabinet Office control regime, and the growing calls for more flexibility around senior and specialist salaries.
But let’s start at the beginning. Who does Dottridge report to, and who sets the policies he works on? The Civil Service Workforce Reform Team used to be part of the Efficiency and Reform Group, which sits within the Cabinet Office. This meant that its head reported jointly to chief operating officer Stephen Kelly and the head of civil service reform (formerly Katherine Kerswell). But it has since been made into a unit in its own right, Dottridge tells me, and now reports to only one person: Chris Last, head of civil service HR (see feature, p20).
So who actually sets policy on civil service pay, terms and conditions, and pensions? “We do,” he says, “albeit under an over-arching framework that’s set by the Treasury; within that framework, we set lots of the parameters. But then there’s a level beneath us, in that civil service pay below the SCS is delegated to individual departments.” Providing political direction and legitimacy, the responsible minister is the Cabinet Office’s Francis Maude. “I can understand how it might appear [confusing],” Dottridge says with a smile. “But it kind of makes sense to us.”
The new pensions scheme
The most significant – and probably the most controversial – chunk of Dottridge’s current work is the new pension scheme. As senior responsible officer for the project and a self-proclaimed “pensions geek”, his job is to ensure it is implemented smoothly and communicated well across a total of around 250 organisations: government departments, public bodies, and private sector organisations employing TUPE staff.
Under the plan, most of the 450,000 civil servants will start paying more into their pension funds from April this year, with the increase linked to their salaries. Those earning £15,000 or less annually, for example, won’t see any increases. And those who were ten years or less away from their current Normal Pension Age on April 2012 – around 100,000 civil servants – will not move to the new scheme either, he adds.
As Dottridge notes, “there are a lot of myths” about the new pensions scheme. One of them, he says, is that “we’re going to force people to work until they’re 68. Actually you can take your pension at an earlier age, but you have to take a reduction on it – you wouldn’t get the full amount.” Another little-understood aspect of the reforms is that some civil servants – those “just beyond being close to retirement age” – can choose when to move to the new scheme: immediately or next year.
Why would anyone move to the new scheme – with increased contributions – a year before they have to? “People can be better off when they’re moving into the new scheme,” he says. I ask for an explanation – a request which puts a wide grin on his face. “So this is pensions,” he replies. “This is why I love pensions! I could talk about pensions till the cows come home.” Containing his excitement, he gets down to business: “The amount of money that you build up for every year of service in the new scheme – the accrual rate – is actually better than in their existing scheme, but they have to take it at a later age. So depending on a range of factors – when you think you’re going to retire, whether you think you might be getting any future pay increases – it might be in your interest to build up service in the new scheme straight away, from 2015.”
The controversial T&Cs
Another disputed area within Dottridge’s remit is that of civil service terms and conditions (T&Cs). In 2012, the centre of government asked departments to review staff T&Cs – including their holidays, sick leave and flexible working. However, the only unified change made to all civil servants’ T&Cs was the rebranding of ‘privilege days’ as a mainstream part of civil servants’ annual leave. And the Cabinet Office decided that even this reform should only apply to new recruits and – if departments agreed – to people being promoted.
Given that each department already offers different T&Cs, applying a new set of changes to particular groups runs the risk of adding further complexity to an already-convoluted system. Is the goal to unify this uneven landscape? “Yes, it’s a difficult mechanism,” Dottridge acknowledges, adding: “I wouldn’t go so far [as saying that] there is a stated aim in terms of a set list that everyone has to have x and y.” At the end of the day, he adds, “it is down to departmental digression; departments are separate employers.”
And what are the savings achieved so far by steps such as cutting civil servants’ holidays? “Obviously, the overarching priority for this government is deficit reduction,” he replies. On the pension side of things, there was a “feeling that the offer that existed was no longer sustainable”; those reforms will save a lot of money over time. But reforming T&Cs, says Dottridge, is less about cash savings and more about “modernisation: making sure that the offer we give to staff is more in line with what good practice would be for comparable employers”. By ‘modernising’ he appears to mean bringing T&Cs more in line with the private sector, where rights and pensions have declined over the years.
However, unlike in the field of pensions – where departments have to conform to centrally-prescribed reforms – when it comes to T&Cs, departments cannot be compelled to follow cross-Whitehall rules. The Department for Work and Pensions, for example, has resisted reforming T&Cs for staff being promoted, arguing that it deters people from developing their careers: the department generally only applies the reforms to new recruits and people entering the SCS. How do Dottridge and his team deal with those kinds of scenarios? “Obviously, we listen,” he says. “We want to speak to [the departments] to understand their concerns.” And ultimately, his team has to defer to departments on issues that are not controlled centrally: “It is the case that below the SCS, terms and conditions are delegated down to individual departments.” He hopes that the experience of reducing T&Cs in some departments, coupled with greater cross-departmental discussion of the issues, will build more widespread support for reform.
A tough message
Whether departments are won over by Dottridge’s approach or not, it can’t be much fun cutting your own T&Cs. He’s philosophical about it: “I’m sure my wife isn’t overjoyed when I come home and tell her the latest thing that’s been announced,” he says, still smiling, “but that’s all part of being a good civil servant. You kind of separate yourself from the impact of what you’re doing, and make the decision in an objective and impartial way.” His team, he adds, are used to managing this tension, “even though it does make us panto villains sometimes with my colleagues”.
Bearing bad news, of course, has created a lot of shot messengers: but Dottridge believes that the only fair thing to do is to “make sure people are aware of what’s happening”. Of pensions, for example, he acknowledges that “many staff have concerns, and they don’t agree with the increase [in contributions], but the least I can do as an official is give people all the information”. To that end, his team is planning a big communications push to offer help and advice on the changes, starting with a letter from Dottridge to every civil servant – expected within weeks. As well as providing information, he’ll aim to drive home the message that “this is still a really good pensions scheme”.
This communications push is necessary because, he says, though information about the reforms has been available at www.civilservice.gov.uk since December, it may have “gone off people’s radar a bit” and “probably hasn’t been seen by everybody”. Given that, he adds: “From now onwards, we’ve got a comms plan and we’re going to ramp up the communication significantly.”
The civil service and flexibility
Another topic frequently raised by senior officials – including chief of defence materiel Bernard Gray, first civil service commissioner Sir David Normington and Mark Russell, chief executive of the Shareholder Executive – is that of civil service pay flexibility; or, rather, the lack of it. More flexibility is needed, these officials warn, to attract and retain the best and brightest. Is there any movement on this issue? Dottridge points to the ‘Pivotal Role Allowance’, introduced in April last year to allow departments to pay project chiefs extra cash if they stay in their role until the project is completed. However, with the entire PRA budget capped at 0.5% of the senior civil service pay bill – about £1.5m – this is hardly the flexibility senior officials are calling for. Is that the only movement? “At the end of the day, public sector pay is something that is decided by ministers,” he replies.
One area where the civil service does offer a great deal of flexibility is that of sabbaticals: Dottridge himself became a “full-time house husband” for two years to look after his kids, after which he was able to return to a secure job. “I baked cakes for two years and did the full range of duties,” he says. “It was amazing, and gave me is the insight that you can have brilliant days at home when the sun is shining, you’re out in the garden and playing and it’s lovely; and then you can have a wet November morning when [the kids] are ill and crotchety, and then you think: ‘Oh, it would be quite nice to go to work’.” All in all, he says, he “became very grateful for an element of flexibility that the civil service could give me”.
The deal for ministers
And back to work he went. On his return to the civil service in April 2009, Dottridge did a year-long stint at the Department for Education, before returning to his passions: first civil service pay, and then pensions, where he was in charge for two years. “I love pensions because they affect everyone, and have such a long-term impact on people’s lives,” he says. Since taking up his current role as workforce reform chief, his responsibilities have also included ministerial pay and pensions.
This topic too, Dottridge says, is typically distorted by misconceptions. The assumption that ministerial pay and pensions haven’t been reformed as much as their civil service equivalents is “another myth”, he says. “Upon taking office, this government took a 5% pay cut in their salaries. We’ve implemented that in legislation, and they’re also taking a pay freeze for the duration of the Parliament.” Ministers have, he adds, seen their pension contributions go up by more than the average rise in civil servants’ contributions. But isn’t the starting position in ministerial schemes higher and better than for the civil service? “I guess it depends on your point of view,” he replies. “Irrespective of where they’re starting from, they have taken steps to reduce the generosity of the package and, in terms of the ministerial pension scheme, potentially they’re going to see an even greater reduction or an even greater change in the benefit structure than civil servants.”
Reforming ministers’ packages brings them more into line with those of other public servants, Dottridge says. MPs holding “certain great offices of state” – the prime minister, the speaker and the lord chancellor – currently have the legislative right to take their pensions as soon as they leave office. But, Dottridge says, “we’ve reformed that”: after the 2015 general election, they’ll join the mainstream MP and ministerial pension scheme. This scheme has a standard starting age of 65, with the option to draw a smaller pension from age 55; after 2015 the standard starting age will track the state pension age, while the Treasury’s consulting about increasing the minimum age to 57 in 2028.
While reforming ministerial payments, Dottridge’s 40-strong team also provides politicians with policy advice. To this end, the workforce reform team takes a monitoring role, keeping an eye on cross-Whitehall trends. “We watch very closely what happens to staff turnover figures,” he says, adding that the resignation rate in the SCS is “fairly low at the moment”. When a trend is detected – such as a rise in turnover rates that could be linked to uncompetitive pay levels – the responsibility for addressing the problem rests with individual departments. But HR people across government would be “reporting back to us on the general climate, so that we can reflect that in our advice to ministers for next year”, Dottridge adds.
As well as feedback from departments, Dottridge’s team also receives useful information on staff morale and engagement from the Civil Service People Survey. Respondents have been using the survey to raise concerns over pay and reforms to pensions for years: what does Dottridge say to critics who accuse him of ignoring these findings and ploughing on with the reforms? “I would say we obviously look at the results each year,” he replies. “We recognise, yeah, these last couple of years have undeniably been tough on people. We recognise that; the government recognises that, I think. But ultimately, it comes down to choices, and the choice you have to make between pay restraint and the need to recruit, retain and keep people in post.”
On that note, we head out to the courtyard for the photoshoot – where Dottridge, mid-pose, tells me again about his team’s pension comms push. The message they will have to communicate to hundreds of thousands of civil servants is tough: you will have to pay more, work for longer, and potentially receive smaller pensions than you expected when you joined the civil service.
Nevertheless, Dottridge remains ever the enthusiast. “Pensions fascinate me because it matters for all of us,” he says. “All of us are going to be in retirement one day, and everyone’s going to need some income to support whatever they want to do at that stage of their lives. So the thing about pensions is it touches on the lives of every civil servant in the country, which is what makes it so rewarding for me.” His zeal strikes an odd contrast with the negative messages that he has to communicate, but it seems best not to ask any more challenging questions. In his job, he needs all the enthusiasm he can muster.