Change in Government:
the agenda for leadership: Further Report
1. We reported to the House on Change in Government:
the agenda for leadership in our Thirteenth Report of Session
2010-12, published on 22 September 2011 as HC 715. We also reported
to the House on Good Governance and Civil Service Reform: 'End
of Term' report on Whitehall plans for structural reform in
our Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12, published on 18 July 2011
as HC 901, and made a further report to the House on Smaller
Government: What do Ministers Do? in our Fifteenth Report
of Session 2010-12. We have now received the Government's response
to all three reports, which we publish as Appendix 1 to this Report,
and a response from the UK Statistics Authority to a recommendation
in our report on Change in Government: the agenda for leadership,
which we publish as Appendix 2.
2. We report briefly below on the main issues raised
in the Government's response. We plan to examine in greater depth
a number of the issues covered in the response in our continuing
examination of Civil Service reform through this Parliament.
Civil Service reform
3. We are pleased to note from the Government response
that the Minister for the Cabinet Office shares our view on a
number of the key changes needed in order to deliver the Coalition's
programme for government. In particular we welcome the recognition
that the Civil Service needs to adapt to become more integrated
and fluid, allowing easier movement around the service. We are
encouraged to learn that the Minister has been advocating "a
different culture: pacier, less paper-driven, less imprisoned
by process, more entrepreneurial and innovative, less risk-averse."
We also welcome his commitment to "a massive upgrading"
in project, programme and contract management skills.
4. We have consistently pressed for the Government
to introduce a coordinated change programme for Civil Service
reform, which we regard as absolutely necessary if the Government
is to achieve its ambitious objectives for decentralisation and
public sector reform. We recommended that the Government should
produce a comprehensive change programme "articulating clearly
what it believes the Civil Service is for, how it must change
and with a timetable of clear milestones". We therefore very
much welcome the announcement that in the spring of 2012 the Government
will publish an outline programme setting out priority areas for
cross-Civil Service reform. We look forward to examining this
programme and tracking its development and implementation. We
also greatly welcome the announcement that the Cabinet Office
is to appoint a Director General for Civil Service reform in 2012.
Change management
5. We indicated our intention to scrutinise change
in the Civil Service against six key principles of good governance
and change management over the course of this Parliament. Those
principles are summarised under the headings of leadership, performance,
accountability, transparency, coherence and engagement. We are
pleased to note that the Government welcomes this proposal and
accepts the principles as a basis for scrutiny of progress on
Civil Service reform.
Civil Service skills
6. We recommended that the Cabinet Office should
monitor departmental change programmes to ensure that departments
retained and developed the key skills they needed to maintain
their core commitments and long term performance. The Government
indicates that this is a matter for individual Departments alone,
and that there are no plans to "impose central direction
from the Cabinet Office" here. We are disappointed by this
response, which to us appears to be an abdication of proper leadership.
It seems to us odd that there is no arrangement to assess whether
key skills are being retained across the Civil Service in a period
of substantial downsizing, and worrying that there are no plans
to undertake even the most rudimentary monitoring.
Staff engagement
7. We recommended that the Government use Civil Service
staff surveys and other opportunities to gauge levels of support
for organisational reforms across the service, and that the Government
should act on the findings to ensure that good change management
practice is replicated across Whitehall. In its response the Government
acknowledges low levels of staff engagement across the Civil Service
and indicates commitment to tacking this issue. We are pleased
to note that the Government recognises the importance of the responsibilities
of leaders and managers to engage staff with their work and with
the objectives of their organisation. The Government response
cites as an example of positive engagement practice the increase
in staff understanding of the objectives and purpose of the Department
for Transport following a sustained engagement programme. We applaud
this initiative and expect Departments to look to such best practice
to improve their engagement levels as reform initiatives progress.
Ministerial numbers
8. In our further report on Ministerial numbers Smaller
Government: What do Ministers Do?, we pressed the Government
to consider again the merits of a fresh review of Ministerial
numbers by the mid-point of this Parliament. The Government does
accept the principle that there is a link between the size of
the House of Commons and the size of the executive, but does not
consider that the case for a more urgent review of Ministerial
numbers has been made.
9. We welcome the acceptance by the Government of
the principle that a reduction in the size of the legislature
should be accompanied by a reduction in the size of the executive.
This marks progress from the position set out in the Government's
initial response to our report. The Deputy Prime Minister told
the House on 11 October 2011 that the reduction in the size of
the House of Commons would not happen until the end of the present
Parliament in 2015, but that action was planned:
We have four years until 2015. We will reflect on
this and we will act.[1]
PASC's argument for a reduction in numbers was based
on the principle that Ministers are doing too much unnecessary
work already and that Ministerial responsibilities ought to be
more thoroughly reviewed. We consider that the proportion of ministers
and Ministerial aides in the present House is already too large.
It is for this reason that we pressed for the review of Ministerial
numbers by the mid-point of this Parliament.
1 HC Deb, 11 October 2011, column 169 Back
| 
