De-blobbing the British government

As per yesterday’s post, I’m getting stuck into my manifesto project. My intention is to make this an open process, not least because no one person could ever hope to acquire all of the necessary expertise.

As such, at least once a week I’m going to publish a section, inviting comment and further input. This week I’m giving thought to governmental reform. Just about everyone who’s paying attention can see the need for extensive reform of the civil service and the whole edifice of government.

Below is my starter for ten, which is not by any means extensive, but I hope it will spark some ideas.

Governmental reform

Much of the poor decision making within Whitehall (and the broader apparatus of government) stems from the culture therein, and from the fact that government has an innate tendency to meddle where it shouldn’t, even to the extent of micromanaging public attitudes. As such, we need a multi-agency overhaul.

For starters, the party will delete a number of ministerial roles, and departments will be scaled back. Quangos such as Ofcom will be deleted and powers will be returned to the relevant ministers. Further suggestions are welcomed.

Civil Service reform

The civil service is often blamed for the under-performance of government. What the politicians proved in 2020, though, when they locked the country down, is that when there is the political will to do something, they can do things quite rapidly.

All the same, when it comes to the daily grind of government, the civil service can be slow, obstructive and bureaucratic, often working to its own agenda, and considers democratic input to be superfluous and unwelcome. There is clear institutional bias against right-leaning policies and it will often sabotage the implementation of policy.

Changing the culture of the civil service cannot be achieved overnight and it will need a completely different approach to recruitment, training and supervision.

For the purposes of civil service reform, we will establish National School of Public Administration, which will teach both senior and entry level civil servants, to a strict syllabus we will define.

This syllabus will be monitored and enforced by an independent inspectorate, responsible to the Prime Minister (Cabinet Office) and accountable to parliament. The inspectorate shall be renewed annually by parliament. The syllabus may only be changed by a standing parliamentary committee (to prevent arbitrary ministerial changes). The syllabus will cover the following areas:

·         Budgeting and financial management

·         Risk and Change management

·         Information management and new technology applications

·         Openness, transparency, and accountability

·         People management

·         Management of networks and partnerships

·         Organisational effectiveness

·         Regulatory management

·         Civil service values and ethics

·         Policy and programme evaluation, formulation and analysis

·         Project management

·         Organisational behaviour

A Masters qualification in any of the above in addition to the basic civil service degree is required to enter senior ranks. This is as much to do away with the stream of Oxford and Cambridge PPE graduates (a culture of its own), but also to prevent against civil servants freelancing with their own agendas. We will also give ministers powers relieve civil servants of duty. Foreign born applicants will be refused except in exceptional circumstances. Candidates from a working class background will be encouraged.

Induction programmes for new staff have increasingly been recognised as beneficial to staff effectiveness as they promote understanding about roles and responsibilities. Ministers will have a role in shaping course content and departmental HR policy, and will have final veto over what is taught in their departments.

We note, however, that the civil service is not the whole of the problem, and much of the cultural problem extends to the emergency services and the armed forces. Again we will establish inspectorates responsible to the Prime Minister, headed by command appointees from within the respective organisations.

To the end of combating “woke” agendas, we will repeal the Equalities Act, to be replaced with a minimalist version in line with a new Bill of Rights, but with exemptions for the police and armed services.

Charities and “the blob”

Since 1997 we’ve seen a massive growth of third sector organisations. Government grants to charities have steadily declined but charities increasingly look to government contracts for income. Income from local authorities has declined in recent years, with central government providing most of the funding.

The sector complains that government grants are declining in value and not keeping pace with inflation, with some subsidising government contracts from cash reserves, and others considering withdrawal from public service delivery.

Major organisations, which receive the largest proportion of income from government, are more likely to have the resources and capacity to bid and deliver large-scale public service contracts. This gives rise to corporate scale charities with fat cat bosses and considerable management overheads.

As such, corporate governance of these charities is distorting their priorities. A report from 15 June, 2024 is one such illustration:  

The Science Museum Group has ended its sponsorship deal with Norwegian energy company Equinor. Ian Blatchford, the museum’s director, told the firm that it was in breach of the museum’s pledge to ensure its sponsors complied with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C, according to emails seen by the Observer through a freedom of information request. In other correspondence, the museum confirmed that sponsors in breach of climate commitments and unable to change course would be subject to gradual disengagement. Equinor, formerly known as Statoil, has sponsored the museum’s interactive Wonderlab exhibition since 2016. The sponsorship deal had been controversial because Equinor owns Rosebank, the biggest undeveloped oil and gas field in the North Sea, which the government gave approval to develop last year.

There is no strict legal duty to make corporate social responsibility commitments, but many third sector organisations choose to comply with faddish voluntary standards such as Corporate Social Responsibility.

In England and Wales, the legal framework surrounding CSR is not defined by a single piece of legislation. Instead, it is woven into various regulations that govern corporate behaviour, including environmental laws and labour laws. The Companies Act 2006, for instance, requires directors to consider the impact of their company’s operations on the community and the environment.

Similarly, the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 mandates certain businesses to disclose their efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their supply chains. While these laws do not enforce CSR per se, they underscore the legal expectation for businesses to undertake responsible practices. This creates considerable bureaucracy.

Where charities are concerned, in order to apply for grants from philanthropic foundations, they often have to prove they meet with CSR guidelines. This adds enormous overheads and can result in absurd decisions as illustrated above. Some charities are asking staff to take on an ‘energy champion’ role or formally tasking staff with encouraging environmental activity within the organisation. This is giving rise to a new breed of non-job within the third sector.

In response to this, the party will set up a Royal Commission to examine the impact of CSR and its near cousin, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. A task force will set about removing CSR requirements and stipulations in government contracts, guidelines and internal processes.

We note that much of this owes its origins to international obligations such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. The party will withdraw from both.

We take the view that many charities have gone far beyond their remit and are now, in effect, political lobbying organisations. In respect of that, we will dramatically reduce the number of central government grants, and will instead look to restore the local connection to funding, whereupon local procurement guidelines will be streamlined to make it easier for smaller charitable organisations to compete for funding.

There are similar themes to this in the university sector and academia. Extensive higher education reforms will be outlined. This is all preliminary work and nothing is yet set in stone.