Written evidence from FDA (WCS 14)

 

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

The work of the Civil Service inquiry

 

 

 

Index

 

 

Introduction
Executive Summary

1. The structure and organisation of the civil service and how appropriate this is for the

     21st century

2. The effectiveness of the civil service in delivering Government policy and how well it

     learns from success and failure

3. The civil service’s collective capabilities and civil servants’ individual skills

4. Risks to civil service impartiality

 

 

Introduction

 

The FDA is the union for senior managers and professionals in public service, representing more than 18,000 members at HEO grade and above. Membership includes senior civil servants, Government policy advisors, prosecutors, diplomats, tax professionals, economists, solicitors and other professionals working across the Government and the NHS. As the representative and voice of these individuals, the union felt it was important to submit evidence to this inquiry into the work of the civil service.

 

Executive Summary

 

The FDA believes that:

1. The structure and organisation of the civil service and how appropriate this is for the 21st century

 

 

1.1 When considering the role of the civil service, it is difficult to encapsulate given the enormous breadth of its role in modern Britain. From policy formulation to direct service delivery, and from national security to nature conservation, the civil service underpins most of what citizens take for granted in a modern 21st century society.

 

1.2 Too much focus inevitably falls on the few civil servants closest to Ministers and the Westminster bubble, while the hundreds of thousands who directly deliver or closely support vital public servants gain little publicity or recognition.

 

1.3 There has been an evolutionary process over many years that have seen the balance of activity ebb and flow. Few people, for example, would argue that the civil service should be the only source of policy advice to Ministers; nonetheless the civil service must remain at the heart of a policy process, distilling advice from a range of sources including special advisers, academics and others, including trade unions, into policy initiatives.

 

1.4 Similarly, the ways in which the civil service assists in delivering policy have changed periodically. This has reorganised the delivery aspects of many Government departments, resulting in the transfer of civil service functions to arms-length agencies and NDPBs, which nonetheless still have an accountability to Ministers that is overseen through the civil service. This has also been affected by; the movement of functions from central government to local Government or other areas of the public sector, although such functions can also at times be brought back within a central Government aegis. This has occurred in either in a concerted way - such as the Next Steps programme - or through quango creep as Governments respond to events and launch initiatives with new bodies, to oversee or deliver services.

 

1.5 Government evolves and changes responding to political direction or changes in society. There is no doubt that the delegated and devolved structure of Government can impede a coherent approach to delivery or policy development, but there is also no doubt that an organisation of such size and complexity requires a structure that can adapt to challenges it faces and therefore has to have power devolved from the centre.

 

1.6 If you stopped the clock now and declared this structure to be correct then probably few would agree, but the current structure reflects the reforms of the last quarter of a century and does not benefit from a blank sheet approach to determining its size and structure. One positive note is that the Coalition Government did, it would appear, learn the lesson that constantly tinkering with the machinery of Government is not only inefficient, but impacts upon the ability of the service to deliver for Government when it is constantly re-organising itself. That stability was universally welcomed and should be a positive example for the current Government.

 

1.7 The previous Coalition Government - and Minister for the Cabinet Office in particular - placed a great emphasis on reform of the civil service. Much of this was sensible and reined back unfettered delegation, which has impinged on the service’s ability to deliver economies of scale or act coherently to improve its functional, professional and specialist leadership and skills.

 

1.8 Some of those reforms, particularly regarding the people issues, were unnecessary and ultimately damaged the morale and standing of the civil service as an employer. It is unfortunate that this ideological obsession of attacking the terms and conditions of public servants continues unabated, often at the expense of genuine efficiency and effective reform.

 

1.9 The FDA has always maintained a position that it is for the elected Government of the day to determine the size of the civil service. There is however a responsibility, both to civil servants and taxpayers, to ensure that the commitments it makes are matched with the resources it allocates.

 

1.10 This is not an exact science as increases or decreases in resources have to be judged in the context of efficiency and reform of structures, particularly in a digital age. There can be no doubt however that given the scale of the reduction in resources over two Parliaments, Government should be held accountable for how it matches those commitments and resources.

 

1.11 This administration lauded its Single Departmental Plans (SDPs) as the place where it would set out clearly its manifesto commitments and how these would be delivered in the context of the Spending Review.

 

1.12 Those SDPs have been universally criticised and make no meaningful attempt at articulating how departments will be able to deliver within the resource constraints. “Political rhetoric is no basis for resource management” was the summation of the Guardian’s David Walker, which seems to sum up the SDPs nicely. At a time when one in ten of our members is working the equivalent of a full weekend unpaid every week and a quarter are working an extra day unpaid every week just to cope with the relentless pressure of work, it is simply not good enough for the Government to wash its hands of the responsibility to match commitments and resources through these inadequate SDPs.

 

1.13 That evidence alone, taken from a survey of more than 1,000 members across 50 civil service employers, clearly demonstrates that there are insufficient resources to deliver the Government’s current commitments and that a heavy price is being paid by civil servants to make up for those inadequate resources.

 

2. The effectiveness of the civil service in delivering Government policy and how well it learns from success and failure

 

2.1 As indicated above, there were a number of sensible proposals in the 2012 Civil Service Reform Plan, for example, the Government clearly needs to enhance the level of commercial skills in areas such as procurement.

2.2 However, the Government undertakes projects on a scale that few private sector organisations would contemplate. It is also under tremendous scrutiny from both informed and ill-informed commentators and politicians. In an article for the FDA’s Public Service Magazine, Bent Flyvbjerg, Professor of Major Programme Management at Oxford University’s Saïd Business School, said: “Government is defined by the fact that it is providing services that are necessary for society but that the private sector won’t go near – Government therefore has to be more willing to accept risk, and if projects are more risky then you would naturally expect more failure.” However, he says that there is no definitive proof that this is actually the case.

2.3 Large organisations - public or private - are constantly evolving, improving and changing. The civil service has no clear comparator given its scale, complexity and the unique demands of serving a Government rather than simply a board of directors.

2.4 Many failures in the private sector never get revealed, whereas the Government makes a conscious effort to be transparent. The debate on how effective the public sector is at overseeing projects is too often “clouded by ideology” according to Flyvbjerg, and evidence either way is scarce.

2.5 In the same article for the FDA’s publication, Head of Infrastructure, Building and Construction at KPMG Richard Threlfall said: “Often, Government projects start while politicians are still debating the policy, which is a recipe for disaster – how can you control costs when the scope is moving around? Clear gateways make things much clearer cut in most corporate environments.”

2.6 Similarly, Jim Reed, Director of Procurement at the University of Nottingham and public sector representative on the Council of the National Outsourcing Association, said: “Because there are more stakeholders to consult, the process can get slowed up. In the private sector you tend to have a more direct approach, and project sponsors are much more decisive at all the key gateways.”

2.7 These references are not provided to prove a point either way on the efficiency of the civil service or its ability to change and learn from mistakes. They are added only to illustrate how difficult it is to make informed relative judgements on the civil service.

3. The civil service’s collective capabilities and civil servants’ individual skills

 

 

3.1 The Civil Service currently has good leadership; historically this has been developed through the National School of Government.  FDA Learn offers training and support for those seeking promotion Into Leadership.  As the influence of the National School diminishes through demographical shift, there is a need to consider how functional leadership and skills will continue to be developed in line with the 2012 Civil Service Reform Plan.

3.2 A new Workforce Strategy is in the offing, which we hope will help institutionalise reforms for the longer term and underpin training and development for future leaders. Our assessment is that there has been a loss of focus since the demise of the National School for Government, particularly on leadership skills, but it would seem this is starting to be recognised and addressed.

3.3 Hay Data and other market-facing analysis starkly highlight the growing decline in pay of senior managers and professionals within the civil service, compared with other sectors. Pay and the relative offer for the civil service continues to decline. The FDA SRRB submissions make clear the necessity to urgently address pay disparity; however, stuck in a mantra of austerity, in real terms, following a more than five years of pay freezes, pay restraint and increases to pension and national insurance contributions, take home pay has fallen by around one-third since 2010. So some civil servants net income less than they did six years ago.

3.4 Inequities in the system prevail and the gender pay gap continues to cause the FDA real concern, so much so that we are embroiled in an Equal pay case with one of the largest government departments.  Inconsistencies prevail and increasingly specialist and market-facing roles are being exempted from the general policy.

3.5 This is a long-term problem for the civil service. Its £12bn pay bill could be much better spent, yet a ‘one size fits all’ ideology persists that few believe is fit for purpose, but sits firmly in the “too difficult” pile with the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury respectively.

3.6 The civil service clearly has the capacity to be the most inclusive and diverse employer in the country, unfortunately, this ideology is not borne out in practice.  The blockages that prevent talented staff, of all backgrounds, meeting their personal aspirations within the organisation and effectively delivering for the civil service are not clearly understood. 

3.7 Policy intentions are clear but their implementation has been difficult to measure and best practice is not often spread throughout the organisation. 

3.8 The Bridge Group report and  the Civil Service Talent Action Plan covering diversity and social inclusivity, has provided a new focus and impetus to deliver diversity outcomes  but this initiative is in its infancy and will not necessary overlap or appear relevant to those currently within the service.  The negative experience of staff with equality characteristics, is evidenced by the outcome of performance management scores, showing an overrepresentation in the lower performance boxes. 

3.9 From promotion rates to performance management outcomes, disabled and BME civil servants consistently suffer detriment. Leadership, resource and genuine political commitment are required in equal measure to deliver the potential on this issue. Too often the civil service suffers from a tendency to lurch from one action plan to another new initiative rather than a long term strategic approach, understanding that the causes and solutions to this problem are complex and long term.

3.10 The number of BAME and Women aspiring towards promotion and the SCS often by engaging with FDA Learn and other FDA talent programmes and our learning courses continue to rise; suggesting that aspirations are there.  A worsening pay gap between the civil service and both the private and the wider public sectors and a dual market on starting salaries combines with the SCS/delegates grade pay overlap to produce an environment that discourages the best civil servants from seeking promotion

3.11 The Civil Service policy on retaining women following maternity leave is also inconsistent and numbers feeding into the SCS remain low and compounds the view that the Civil Service is not committed to retaining talent.  

3.12 If staff feel they do not have equal access to opportunities, there is a danger that this talent will be sought elsewhere. 

3.13 Diversity, in its broadest sense, needs to be on the agenda at every level and there is evidence that this is increasing; however, deliverable outcomes and a consistent measure is also needed to make a real difference to BAME and disabled staff striving to develop their career within the civil service.

3.14 In many areas its track record over the last 20 years is good, but that improvement is stalling and improvement is not universal.

 

4. Risks to civil service impartiality

 

 

4.1 We can see no evidence to suggest that the civil service has become more politicised in recent years. It is a constant accusation and feature of debate which has fascinated the Westminster bubble for decades. Too often there is a lack of understanding of the roles of civil servants who, at the end of the day, serve a Government with a political agenda.

4.2 The EU and Scottish referenda are perfect examples. As professionals, civil servants rightly support the policies of their Government. In the Scottish context this meant two democratically elected Governments had different attitudes to the referendum and therefore civil servants in the respective administrations had to discharge those responsibilities even though they conflicted.

4.3 In the current EU referendum, howls of outrage at the role of the civil service has been heard from the Leave camp, despite there being a settled Government policy of Remain.

4.4 As ever, the criticism comes from those with something to gain, rather than those genuinely concerned with impartiality.

4.5 Politicians in Government and Opposition are, at the end of the day, political animals and will always push at the boundaries between what makes good politics and what makes good Government. The rules on impartiality and the doctrines that have supported a politically neutral civil service will only be maintained by constant support and vigilance. Initiates such as Extended Ministerial Offices blur the lines between those that are appointed for what they can do and those that are appointed for what they believe.

4.6 We see little evidence to support substantial changes to the principle of accountability between civil servants, Ministers and parliament that would not fundamentally undermine not only the effective working of government, but also the impartiality of civil servants. There have always been tensions and a degree of finger pointing when problems occur. This is the nature of Government and politics but this does not in itself justify wholesale changes.

4.7 The current debate can be viewed as a power struggle between parliament (or some of its Committees) and Government over control of the civil service, or at least its more senior officials. The approach from some Select Committee members towards civil servants is at times little more than using them as a convenient vehicle for self-aggrandisement.

4.8 Whether the civil service is 100 times larger than it was in Haldane’s day is little more than an anecdote in the debate on how our public services are held accountable to our democratic institutions, and we can see little evidence beyond that power struggle to suggest that Government would be more effective or the taxpayer better served by fundamental changes to these principles.

June 2016