Key speeches by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have signalled that the government has serious ambitions for civil service and public service reform.
On 5th December The Prime Minister launched the government’s Plan for Change. The plan starts by setting out three foundation areas of economic stability, secure borders and national security. And then the bulk of the plan clarified each of the five missions setting out: the existing problem and challenges; their ambitions; the key measures that describe success; and, some initial areas for action. An innovation in the world of government strategic plans is the identification of a single signature milestone for the current parliament for each of the five missions. Really there are six missions each with one milestone rather than five as ‘Rebuilding Britain’ and its housebuilding milestone is lumped somewhat awkwardly into the economic growth mission. The rebuilding Britain mission is quite distinctly described but there is a strong argument to be made that it would benefit from its own mission control board and team.
The plan for change is focused, clear and ambitious. And the timing creates space for Mission Boards to develop their approach to public service reform in a way that drives an outcome focused spending review.
As a serial perpetrator and student of public sector performance planning, measures and assessment I find the plan for change unusually good. Unlike the dense (pretty much identical) tomes produced at great cost by external consultants in many countries – they have a limited number of clear ambitions, pitched at the right level, a straightforward and plain english description of the issues and challenges now, and they have picked out sound measures to describe progress or the lack of it. An innovation is their use of milestones that have the unifying characteristic of being things that the public should notice (but don’t necessarily expect them to thank you for it though even if you achieve them). The milestones are not easy, they demand something quite different from business as usual – which is the right way to use targets even if they end up being missed: they will drive change and ambition.
The new government was right to give themselves some time following the election to work through determine the measures and milestones with the support of their new civil servants, allowing for engagement and consultation inside and outside government. And by pushing back the conclusion of the spending review they have given themselves further time to take stock of how far there is an existing portfolio of policies and plans that will match their ambition (spoiler alert – they won’t be sufficient) – and to start to prioritise new areas for action and decide where to boost the best of existing policies and programme in order to meet their mission ambitions. The biggest test of their seriousness will be taking decisions to close down less effective programmes and policies that consume resources without sufficient payback – however cherished they may be by some departments. In a time of no new money this is what has to be done, but departments are hard wired to defend their existing programmes and budgets so Ministers will need to provide cross departmental political drive and courage.
Best of all this strategic stocktake of and commissioning of new policies and actions will happen during the lead into what is promised to be an outcome focused spending review. It was sensible to delay that till June to allow time for strategic policy making to drive the prioritisation of resources. This outcome based approach seems obvious but it is really unusual in practice. This will be only the second time it has happened since the spending review process was created nearly 30 years ago.
Image generated by Abode Express AI 9-12-2024
Throwing down the gauntlet on reform
Starmer’s launch of the Plan for Change was soured by his (or more likely his speechwriter’s) clumsy language. It felt to many like a return to the civil servant baiting of previous governments – an unnecessary and careless own goal.
That [accountability] is part of how we shift the focus in Westminster towards long-term change… our plan commits Whitehall to mission-led government. An approach to governing that won’t just deliver change… But also change the nature of governing itself. Fix the foundations and find new tools for the job.
Make no mistake – this plan will land on desks across Whitehall… With the heavy thud of a gauntlet being thrown down. A demand, given the urgency of our times… For a state that is more dynamic… More decisive… More innovative… Less hostile to devolution and letting things go… Creative - on the deployment of technology… Harnessing its power to rethink services… Rather than replicate the status quo in digital form.
Country first, party second. Because this is something we’ve totally lost sight of in British politics… And, to be honest, across Whitehall as well. I don’t think there’s a swamp to be drained here… But I do think too many people in Whitehall are comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline. Have forgotten, to paraphrase JFK… That you choose change, not because it’s easy… But because it’s hard.
But across Whitehall and Westminster… That’s been internalised as “don’t say anything”. “Don’t try anything too ambitious”. “Set targets that will happen anyway”…
Reform minded Civil servants experienced his gauntlet as a slap in the face with a wet fish. My WhatsApp feed lit up:
It just so incredibly frustrating pouring so much effort into finding ways to improve the way the civil service works, and then to read stuff like this. This speech seems to have been written by someone who has made no effort to understand what people like me, who care about making stuff better, are trying to do. It’s just lazy. Why not champion those who are trying to make things better? [Grade 6 civil servant]
This is a shame because the speech suggests the Prime Minister does get what it is going to take to deliver on some seriously ambitious missions and milestones. This misstep might just be some a residual symptom of a no10 still reeling from their Sue Grey experience. But they should remember that Francis Maude (much of whose analysis was sound) completely lost the senior leadership of the Civil Service early on in 2010 through his hostile tone (amplified by a special advisor who lacked humility or any experience of making change in a large institution). No10 and Cabinet Office ministers should be careful to take their cues on how to engage and mobilise civil servants from Cat Little, Civil Service Chief Operating Officer who is a class leadership act.
Pat McFadden made a much better fist of it in his speech at UCL East on Monday 9th December, suggesting some rapid remedial work had been done on the tone of how the government talks about civil servants.
For Government to deliver what it wants there has to be reform of the state itself. I work with hard working and diligent civil servants every day. They want to do well for their country and for the public. The people are good but the systems and structures they work in are too often outdated and make it hard for them to deliver.
And no one will welcome changing that more than civil servants themselves. Do we think people like the fact that they’ve gone to a lot of meetings and feel like they are banging their head against a brick wall? Of course they don’t. They want to achieve, and we have to help them do it. It is right that we expect people to focus on delivery and right that we drive the system towards that goal.
So I’m not here today to talk about what lanyards people wear or to open up another chapter in a culture war.
He and Starmer are very wise to link the need for public service reform directly to the delivery of the missions – rather than being some abstract good thing.
McFadden gave some very clear messages about taking a different approach to the spending review.
The old debate was focussed almost entirely on the size of the budget. The only announcement that mattered was the spending attached to it.
Any money that wasn’t “new” was thought not to count. And the beginning and the end of analysis was how much the budget was growing. We need to ask more from ourselves than that. Of course resources matter. You can’t pay people for free and you can’t buy equipment or buildings for free.
But the size of the budget is not the only question. It’s what are you using it for, what will the outcome be, how will you organise people to make sure it happens.
As we launch the next phase of the spending review at its heart must be reform of the state in order to do a better job for the public.
He outlined some new ways of working on the missions. These signal that he does not think Whitehall always knows best on policy making. Instead it has to act as a supportive system leader that takes an open approach to policy making. He announced an initial wave of ‘test and learn’ projects in Manchester, Sheffield, Essex and Liverpool in partnership with local authorities and regional mayors to model a new way of working on some of the key challenges facing the missions:
Those teams will be a mix of policy officials, data and digital people, and staff from local public services - and at first, they’ll be tasked with tackling two challenges: temporary accommodation and family support.
On temporary accommodation, we want them to begin by looking at how we can reduce costs.
And on family support, they’ll be looking at how family hubs can increase the number of disadvantaged families that they reach.
The immediate positive reaction is striking amongst thoughtful public service types, for example James Plunkett of NESTA on BlueSky:
the point about the outcome and how to organise the work is important and promising. (Notice this isn't 'how to organise' in the sense of a big re-org. It's about operating models, mentalities, ways of working, how teams are setup.)
the lesson being drawn was about starting small and learning and adapting. De-risking by bringing the work into contact with reality, with quick feedback loops.
The key is that the centre will not dictate how to do this. 'We set them a problem and equip them to get on with it.' Recognises that this needs an appetite for risk - some things won’t work first time. What's key is that we're setup to notice and then try something different.
Also recognises the link to accountability - need to avoid driving 'a culture of checkers, rather than doers'. Also the link to talent. And good to hear this isn't just about bringing in 'innovators' and technologists but also frontline expertise. 'People who know the obstacles.'
The approach McFadden outlined stands on the shoulders of waves of earlier civil service reforms and innovations which each pioneered new ways of working with the wider system: the Social Exclusion Unit’s Policy Action Teams of 26 years ago, the Government Digital Services in the 20teens, the Scottish Government’s improvement interventions in 2012 and above all the Total Place Pilots in 2009.
A common theme through these reforms was that diverse perspectives were critical to better understanding and then acting on tough challenges. But civil servants were always a valued and crucial part of the mix.
McFadden used the start up analogy to try to convey what test and learn would look like in practice. He also described the diversity of perspectives he wants to be involved in his test and learn pilots:
…tech expertise is not the only expertise we want.
We also want people working on the front lines of public services in communities across the UK.
Prison governors, social work heads, directors of children’s services - they are the ones on the ground who can see how things are working, where the obstacles are, and where a policy won’t survive contact with reality.
They have looked at the people that depend on us in the eye, seen how the system has sometimes been broken – they have taken the frustrations home with them each week.
We want to give them the chance to be part of the solution.
So first, we will also be bringing in secondees - both frontline workers and digital and data experts - to work on our test-and-learn teams.
Encouragingly he recognises the practical barriers to getting in new talent into government – and the urgent need to simplify processes.
What wider public service players have spotted is how McFadden’s speech could signal a big change in how central government sees it role. This impression chimes strongly with the strong message that came from Cat Little, Chief Operating Officer for the Civil Service at her recent session with the Institute for Government. She mentioned system leadership at least 7 times according to my notes.
If the new leadership of government and the civil service really takes on the implications of government acting as a system leader (or steward) they will unavoidably be setting course for bold (and contested) reforms.
The barriers that hampered and even unravelled past reforms will do so again if there are not radical interventions by new leaders to address their deep-rooted nature.
Ministers will need to confront both the federal nature of government and the enduring ‘central policy makers know best’ mindset which leads to policy development in the mode of system controller rather than system steward.
For those officials who have made their career by succeeding in the old world it is a big ask for them to see the value and importance of selectively breaking it - as is required by a system leadership view of government and the civil service. There are of course senior officials who were energised and active in earlier efforts – but many have left the civil service over the last 5 years.
To address the implications of being a strategic government that acts as system leader will require strong political conviction and tenacity. Those bringing the political drive need to ensure they have sufficient strategic thinking capability to challenge the sceptical wing of officials and rebuff the default arguments which will inevitably emerge around resources and priorities for missions in the forthcoming outcome focused spending review: for example why more resources cannot be devolved, or ring fences removed or main programme funding re-purposed and re-prioritised. And the new Cabinet Secretary must lead shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State leading the five missions and with the two Cabinet Office Ministers Gould and McFadden.
As the Prime Minister emphasised in his speech:
“To change this country, we must change the way government serves this country. That is what Mission-led government will do. From breaking down silos across government to harnessing the incredible potential of technology and innovation, it will require nothing less than the complete re-wiring of the British state to deliver bold and ambitious long-term reform.
Delivering this scale of change will require exceptional civil service leadership.”
He has firmly marked the card of the new Cabinet Secretary, Chris Wormald.
Peter Thomas 9-12-2024
Comments