In looking back at 2013, is the civil service’s glass half-full or half-empty? The challenge, to deliver reform with significantly and increasingly reduced resources, continues unabated.
Whatever your views on public expenditure cuts, ministers have too infrequently given credit to civil servants for the almost unprecedented savings delivered while maintaining public services. I put that in the glass half-full category: one day there will be greater recognition of how the civil service coped with such dramatically-reduced resources over such a short period of time.
Unfortunately, civil service resource is the gift that keeps on giving to the chancellor. Just as he brought in the new year with further cutbacks – an extra 3% for 2013-15 – so he ended it with a further £1.1bn reduction for 2014-15.
The chancellor is clear that if he’s in charge, reductions will continue for at least the first few years of the next Parliament; realistically, the squeeze will continue no matter who wins the 2015 election. So a glass in each hand: one half-full, one half-empty.
‘The Civil Service Reform Plan: One Year On’ was refreshingly honest, recognising where more needed to be done. Unfortunately, it’s tainted by the blunt and ideological attack on terms and conditions. With little evidence or justification for the proposals, they were forced through and remain a bone of contention. Savings will be miniscule compared to the erosion of trust.
There has also been no place for a balanced discussion on ‘total reward’, with the government continuing to ignore evidence of the yawning chasm between senior staff reward levels in the private and public sectors. This issue will not go away, as the government struggles to recruit and retain the talent needed to carry out its work. So, definitely half-empty there.
‘One Year On’ also contained plans for Extended Ministerial Offices to give greater support for ministers. Though supportive of greater ministerial assistance, the FDA had significant concern about blurred lines between political and impartial appointees. What has since emerged is a sensible and pragmatic compromise between the need for ministers to have a strong team coping with increasing demands, and the need for the civil service to remain politically impartial and serve the interests of the public, not simply the present incumbent. Ultimately, that glass is half-full.
But if the civil service is to serve ministers’ interests, then ministers need to think about how they, as leaders of their departments, also serve the interests of their staff. Once again, a year passes with both overt and covert criticism of the professionalism and competence of civil servants, who have no opportunity to defend themselves in public. It should dawn on ministers that this practice is self-defeating. The longer a government is in power and continues to criticise its staff, the more criticism will be levelled at the minister who’s supposed be in charge. What impact do ministers believe all this has on the broader civil service? The glass is almost completely empty on this one.
If at its inception in 2010 this government had been clearer about the pace and scale of resource reductions, would it have looked more radically at public service delivery and civil service organisation? This question is asked in our alternative white paper ‘Delivering for the Nation: Securing a World Class Civil Service’, and also posed by the Public Administration Select Committee, which made just one recommendation from its extensive look at civil service reform: the establishment of a parliamentary commission (see letter, right). This was discounted by the government as a distraction from the reform plan. Whether or not a parliamentary commission is the right vehicle – and we have concerns that it would be a review done to rather than with the civil service – serious questions remain on resource, cross-departmental working, lines of accountability, skills, motivation and morale.
For the civil service to continue serving the British people to the best of its ability in the challenging fiscal and political environment ahead, it needs stability. At our alternative white paper launch it was noted that, for the first time since the Second World War, all three main political parties have recent government experience. Given that whoever wins the election will be left with similar challenges, is there an opportunity here to establish some cross-party consensus on civil service reform? Will politicians be up to that challenge?