Whitehall reform back on the horizon

March 1, 2009

Chris Leslie, Guardian Public

Liam Byrne’s speech at February’s Guardian Public Services Summit was telling on a number of levels. The Government are clearly keen to regain momentum in the public service reform arena, a topic slipping down the news agenda as ‘credit crunch’ dominates the headlines. He made a cogent case for decentralisation, “people power” and the involvement of the third sector in delivery. There will undoubtedly be wrinkles in the best laid plans for welfare reform – especially as the case for conditionality is tested when the availability of job vacancies rapidly diminishes. But overall there were some positive signs of progress.

Take the case Byrne makes for further Whitehall reform: there was recognition of the qualities of the civil service while acknowledging difficulties in capturing the spirit of innovation partly due to persisting siloism and disjointed departmentalitis. These are the behind-the-scenes machinery of government issues which, although uninspiring to the electorate, must be addressed if believers in collective provision are to prove their case. The truth is that we face a crisis in traditional approaches to public administration – especially at the centre of government – when measured against the enormous challenges of rising public expectations, increasingly diverse communities, economic turbulence and an increasingly complex networked society. The civil service has been resting on withered laurels for too long; the virtues upon which it trades – of honesty, integrity, promotion on merit – are a basic minimum and no longer sufficient in themselves. We need a system of government that is fit for the complex tasks of a 21st century in which the public sector must be as good if not better than the best of the private sector in delivering results.

There are many ways of achieving public service improvement, the first being a recognition that no single lever or device will necessarily be appropriate across every single service. “Choice and contestability” do fit in many circumstances, and there are plenty of services (transport, housing, elderly social care) where these tactics could be better deployed. But alternative providers are not always appropriate – for instance in law enforcement – and ‘choice’ cannot drive improvement in collective services such as street lighting or road maintenance. We need a more sophisticated understanding at all levels of public service management that there are different drivers for change from time to time. The power of the professional can effect change in remarkable ways where the public service ethos combines with high staff morale and a shared enthusiasm for improvement, evident especially in the caring services. But occasionally the balance of power between professional and consumer interests needs to be tempered. Technological change is also barely drawn upon by service managers in capturing the transformative effect that alternative products can have on service outcomes, whether running a library following the advent of Google, or running transactional services in an era of electronic transfers. Perhaps the most derided influence on change is in the unfashionable quarter of citizen and democratic pressure, where the accountability of political leadership can really drive improvements if harnessed and allowed to re-emerge in what can sometimes feel like a faceless age of managerialism.

So when the Whitehall Reform commission announced by Byrne (including Sir David Omand, Lord Adebowale and Professor Ken Starkey) considers how to acquire new approaches to service improvement, what should it recommend? Capturing the expertise of the frontline must involve breaking Whitehall out of a cloistered existence. As the recently published NLGN report “Challenging Perspectives” notes, the centre must find ways to attune its antenna and gain a sharper ‘spatial awareness’ of realities in the field. Policy-making processes need to use sub-national structures more intelligently, including local and regional agencies. The ‘Capability Review’ process must test whether departments get out and about enough. There should be more direct accountability for the very welcome PSA outcome-based model in Parliament. A radical improvement in the staffing interchange between Whitehall and local government is required. Financial devolution is long overdue and unless the current settlement changes, the dependency culture between centre and locality will persist. And the encouraging ‘challenge’ provided by the new Regional Ministers should be nurtured as a constructive antidote to the outdated command-and-control fiefdoms that departments of state have a tendency to become.

Liam Byrne talks of the “unfinished business” of Whitehall reform. This must include radically new ways of structuring and leading public service delivery. It is now time to create that culture of enterprise and incentives for innovation with a united public service, with local government and the centre working as one.


Explore More