Around this time last year, when I was still working at the think tank Reform, I was commissioned by the Government to carry out “a broad assessment of improvements in the quality of policy making since the publication of the Civil Service Reform Plan in June 2012, including the extent to which policy advice takes into account issues of implementation.” 1 We agreed at the time that my report, which was completed in February this year, would be “in publishable format” but that it might not be published given the imminence of the General Election. So, not a secret report, but not a public one either. Now that the civil service reform is officially dead2 it seemed sensible to capture for posterity this fleeting insight into efforts of the Coalition Government to improve policymaking.
The research itself was divided into two halves. The Cabinet Office organised a couple of online surveys to capture the views of civil servants and I was sent wandering around Whitehall with a digital recorder and a list of 15 Secretaries of State and senior ministers to interview. In many ways, the result was a sort of 360 degree review of the state of the policy profession. And, as so often with such reviews, the picture that emerged was one where policymakers’ self-assessment didn’t always align closely with those of their main customers.
A particularly valuable feature of the research arose from a serendipitous combination of Coalition realpolitik and David Cameron’s preference for a “steady-as-she-goes” style of government. This meant that most of my interviewees had been in post since June 2010 – a term of office which afforded them real insights into the inner workings of their departments. By contrast, those who had moved after the 2013 reshuffle were able to compare two years’ experience in one department with a similar length of time in another.
Combined with the views of “policy professionals” and frontline “operational delivery” staff from the two surveys, this produced a final report stuffed full of fascinating nuggets that go straight to the heart of the ministerial/official relationship. (The top risk highlighted to Ministers? “Communications and presentational issues” – although financial, legal and operational risks are also important…) The views of Ministers themselves were wide ranging but consistent. Regardless of seniority and party affiliation the same points emerged, with three broad areas for improvement:
- Opportunities for systemic improvement: breaking down inter- and intra-departmental silos; better connecting policy and operational delivery; opening up the Civil Service to both internal debate and external ideas.
- Opportunities to improve the quality of policy making: bridging the artificial divide between policy and analysis; developing “inward facing” skills like critical thinking and drafting (including basic literacy) alongside “outward facing” skills like commercial awareness and Parliamentary business management.
- Opportunities for better staff management: balancing the need for “sharp generalists” with a proper recognition for those who choose to develop deep subject expertise; balancing a reduction in staff “churn” with more regular use of external employment; balancing the encouragement of greater personal responsibility with tougher management of poor or variable performance.
Civil service reform is one of those things that seems to come and go in waves, ebbing and flowing like the tide. Or possibly a nasty bout of fever. The Blair government had a good go at professionalising the policy making process back in the heady days of 1999. For the last five years, Francis Maude led a one-man crusade. The tide is flowing out now – the fever has receded – and life carries on as before. I should give the final word to one of my interviewees – a very well-respected Minister of State – who observed with admirable honesty: “If you hadn’t told me that the Government has a Civil Service Reform Plan, I wouldn’t have known.”
Download the Civil Service Policy Profession Review [pdf]