Sir Bob
Kerslake Speech - Reflections on Reform
25th
September 2014
Good evening and thank you all for coming.
It is very gratifying that there is so much interest.
The IfG have told me that we could have filled the space twice over.
My apologies to those who wanted to come but we couldn’t fit in.
The IfG have though, arranged for this talk to be streamed live.
I hope that people have not come in the expectation of a ‘blow by blow’ account of my two years as Head of the Civil Service.
I am still a civil servant and so bound by the code!
What I will give you though are some reflections on what we were trying to achieve, how far I think we have got and where we need to go next.
To have any useful conversation about civil service reform, you need to be clear on two questions:
· What is the Civil Service?
· In what ways does it need reforming?
Neither of these questions is as straightforward to answer as it might appear.
For many commentators and indeed many of the public, the civil service is Whitehall, advisors to ministers, ‘Yes Minister’ and ‘The Thick of it’.
For young people, who haven’t watched either of these programmes, the picture is even less clear.
I spoke to a group of sixth formers in Erith last year as part of the excellent ‘Speakers in Schools’ initiative.
Half way through my talk after questions such as ‘Did I carry a gun?’ it dawned on me that they thought the Civil Service was synonymous with the Secret Service!
Their interest waned a bit when I explained the difference, until I told them how much I earned, which for them was an unimaginably large sum of money!
The people in this room will know that the Civil Service numbers over 400,000, that the vast bulk of civil servants work outside London delivering services and that their average pay is quite close to the national average.
You will also know that the civil service isn’t a single organisation, but a group of organisations – government departments, arms length bodies - all of whom are separate legal employers.
Indeed if you ask staff who they work for their first answer will be the immediate organisation they belong to such as the Prison Service or Job Centre Plus.
When I took on the Head of Civil Service role I did ask myself the existential question of whether it was meaningful to talk about the civil service at all.
Should we simply see the civil service as part of a wider public service encompassing health and local government?
And yet the civil service is an institution that people recognise.
Equally important, when I went out across the country to talk to civil servants it was clear that they understood and valued being part of the civil service.
They identified with its values and saw the benefits of belonging to it.
Producing a Reform Plan which spoke to the issues that interested commentators and Whitehall at the same time as having relevance to all civil servants was a real challenge.
But in the end I think this was the right decision to make.
This brings me to the second of my questions about the meaning of reform.
The use of the word reform is now so ubiquitous that it takes an effort of memory to think that this wasn’t always the case.
Its dictionary definition is ‘to make changes in an institution or practice in order to improve it’.
John Lanchester, in his recent book “How to speak money” has a more jaundiced version:
“This is something of a weasel word. In its modern economic usage it never, ever, not once, means ‘hiring more people and giving your current workforce more generous pay and conditions’. Instead, it usually means sacking people and making the ones who are in work do more for less”.
It is interesting to note that when I took on the new role in January 2012, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister saw the case for change and improvement but were definitely not interested in revolution.
Indeed it took some work to persuade ministers of the need for a reform plan.
Big changes were already underway in departments and the Cabinet Office’s Efficiency and Reform Programme was well established.
However it seemed to me that there was a compelling case to bring together the disparate change agendas into a single plan.
The Plan produced in June 2012 was consciously intended to be a set of practical actions which together added up to radical change.
The civil service had seen too many weighty tomes on reform gather dust in the past.
We wanted something that would lead to real and measurable change in a reasonable timescale.
The process of producing the plan was much tougher than I had anticipated.
It unleashed a wide range of conflicting views on how far reform should go, with some asking quite fundamental questions that went well beyond our original ambition.
It is perhaps a sign of my naiveté, but I had never expected civil service reform to be so damn interesting to others!
What we did manage to produce though, was a clear set of practical actions that drew on the ideas of ministers, permanent secretaries and civil servants themselves.
Not all the actions were of equal weight, nor was it the last word on reform. But I do think the plan and the four themes I spoke about of a more unified, open, skilled and accountable civil service have stood the test of time.
If I have one regret, it is that we took forward the proposed changes to terms and conditions at the same time as the plan.
In the event, these were a modest set of revisions that addressed areas where the civil service were clearly outliers.
However, many civil servants saw it as evidence that our reforms were closer to the John Lanchester definition than the Dictionary one.
It took a while and lot of active communication before the positive benefits of investing in learning and development for example, came through.
One of the most common questions I got was ‘Why reform?’
If we have what is often described as the ‘the best civil service in the world’, why was a major reform programme needed?
At one level the answer is that all institutions - however good they are – have weaknesses that they need to address.
Part of any good organisation should be a culture of continuous improvement.
However I think that there is deeper and more compelling argument on the need for change.
Put simply, the world is changing rapidly and we need to change with it.
If we want to stay relevant and respected we have to understand these changes and their implications for us.
Ideally we need to anticipate change and get ahead of it.
It is worth saying a word about these external drivers.
The first and most obvious is the need to deliver economic growth and a more competitive economy.
After the longest recession since these things have been measured we are now seeing a return to growth.
But the recovery so far has largely restored us to the pre – crash position. There are still big economic challenges in a global economy that remains pretty uncertain.
This is of course a big issue for the ‘economic’ departments in government.
But every department has a role in creating a pro- growth environment.
It requires a complete change of mindset on everything from regulation to procurement to investment decisions.
Without economic growth we will not generate the resources needed to support good services and a better quality of life.
The second and equally obvious driver is austerity.
I don’t need to speak at length on this, particularly to this audience.
Suffice it to say that under any Government, we face up to a further five years of austerity in public sector spending.
The first five years have been challenging but the second five years are likely to prove even harder for three reasons.
Firstly, the easier savings have already been made.
Secondly, we are likely to be doing it against a background of a growing economy and greater competition for good staff.
Thirdly, the sense of urgency that underpinned the first savings programme will be reduced. In reality, the task is not yet complete. But this will be hard to explain to those in the public sector, including our own staff, who are looking for some relief.
The challenge, in which I believe the Civil Service has excelled, has been to deliver big programme savings at the same time as undergoing huge change and reduction itself.
Achieving this has not just tested our resilience but our leadership, delivery, contracting and technical skills.
The third driver I would highlight is retaining public trust.
The Civil Service itself is in a good place on this, having seen public trust in it rising steadily over time.
But the public’s trust in our institutions more widely - Parliament, the BBC, the Police - has fallen quite dramatically.
Put simply, there is a growing gap between the governing and the governed.
There are some who have argued that there is a problem with all big institutions – public and private - and that people now think and act in a more individual way.
Big institutions are too hierarchical, lumbering and unresponsive to fully reflect how people now lead their lives.
This matters a great deal in a period where Government are seeking to persuade people of the need for radical change.
The responses to this – greater transparency, devolving power to the lowest practical level, flatter structures, better delivery, harnessing the power of new technology, even higher standards of conduct – are now well established.
But we know that we pay a high price for getting it wrong.
One high profile failure outweighs ten unheralded successes.
I have gone on at length about these drivers because I think they provide the enduring reasons for change and reform that go beyond current individuals and even governments.
The civil service is not and never was broken.
But if it wants to stay relevant and be the best it can be, it must continue to reform.
Let me move on to the question ‘How far have we got?’
In short, I think that a great deal has been delivered that the civil service should take great pride in.
In the first year, progress was mixed and the One Year On report was honest enough to admit this.
However the Two Years On report, which is due to be published shortly, points to accelerated progress and real change happening on the ground.
There isn’t time now to do this justice to all the achievements so let me focus on just four:
Skills
For the first time, we have a government wide Capabilities Plan with a clear set of priorities for strengthening skills.
Nearly two thirds of civil servants did the self-assessment to identify where they needed to strengthen their skills.
Investment in training in the priority areas – commercial, programme management, digital and leading change - has gone up five fold.
The Major Projects Authority and the Major Projects Leadership Academy have had a real impact on the ability of Government to manage big projects.
Recruitment hubs have been set up for Digital and Commercial staff that have brought in over a hundred staff with vital skills and talent from the private sector.
100 fast track apprenticeships have joined the Civil Service since September 2013. They commenced their level four apprenticeship qualification in January of this year.
Functional
Leadership
We have made more progress in the last two years to bring together and strengthen the core support functions of government - H.R, Legal Services, Communications, IT, and Property - than was made in the last decade.
The Crown Commercial Service for example, will soon be responsible for £4bn of Government expenditure.
A more coherent approach to the Government Estate has saved more than £1.2bn since 2010.
Accountability
We now have a common appraisal system across the whole of the civil service that both assesses how staff have delivered in their jobs as well as what they have achieved.
This sharpens accountability for performance not just for senior posts but at all levels.
Digital
We have made excellent progress on the 25 Digital Exemplar projects.
22 of the 25 exemplars are now live or in beta including the DVLA’s new view driving record service, carers allowance in DWP and the Cabinet Office’s Electoral Registration service which has seen over a million people register in 2 months.
As well as being valuable in their own right, these projects build capacity and confidence for the much bigger digital transformations that are now underway.
Taken together, it hard to think of any period in which the civil service has changed as much and delivered so much.
And we have done this against a background of reducing numbers by 82,000 since 2010.
The progress we have made was brought home to me when I visited the Civil Service Live events in Liverpool, Bristol and London this year.
The enthusiasm and energy I saw convinced me that reform is not now just a Plan led from the top, but has been taken on and is being led by civil servants themselves.
Recognising and praising what has been achieved doesn’t mean that I think the job is done or that I am complacent about the challenges ahead.
Just as we can point to some great delivery successes, we know that there have also been some serious and unacceptable failures.
Here is my ‘to do’ list of unfinished business:
We need to decide what the future organisational model of the civil service is that will be sustainable with a further round of savings.
My firm view is that we need to move to a much more corporate model with stronger professional leadership across Whitehall and greater sharing of services.
The ability to deal with cross cutting issues is still weak. Whitehall still works too much in silos. I’m pleased to have been part of two initiatives to break this down – Troubled Families and the Local Growth deals – but it is too much like hard work at the moment.
Good progress has been made on strengthening our capability but it will need to go further. Part of this will be how we attract, develop and retain people in key skills that are highly marketable.
We still have some way to go to get to a point where senior leaders with operational or professional backgrounds feel equally valued to those with policy backgrounds.
I’m delighted the Talent Action Plan has now been published and I would like thank Simon Fraser for his work on it. We are ahead of many but if we want to be an exemplar, there are some big issues that still need to be tackled.
We need in particular to tackle the macho culture that too many women experience and increase the number of BME staff at senior level, which has flat lined in recent years.
The story on diversity is still too variable across departments.
Central Government needs to do less and devolve more. There is still a working assumption that Whitehall knows best.
I am not starry eyed that everything done locally is done well. There have serious failures there as well.
But the sucking up of power crowds out the space for ministers and civil servants to focus on the things that only they can do.
The original Reform Plan was rightly criticised for being light on the future vision for the civil service. I’m pleased that this was picked up in the One Year On Report.
The debate on this though, needs to surface and honestly discuss the radically differing views on what the future civil service should look like.
At the moment this debate is happening more by proxy.
I didn’t think I could conclude this speech without addressing some of the questions that have been raised about my job.
Was it impossible?
It was certainly at times very demanding.
The biggest pressure though, didn’t come from managing the workload but managing the relationships.
Did the split after Gus left make sense?
I think at the time it did.
The challenge for the Cabinet Secretary in supporting a Coalition Government is considerable.
At the same time there was a big task in leading the Civil Service through reform.
But I never expected the arrangement to last forever.
Did Jeremy and I fall out?
The short answer to that is no.
We had a positive working relationship and I have the very greatest of respect for Jeremy’s abilities.
If it was all so hunky dory, why did I do that tweet following my operation?
Well, even Permanent Secretaries are allowed a sense of humour!
Two things I will miss about the job:
The enthusiasm and commitment of the civil servants I met on my seventy visits across the country.
They really believe in what they do and think constantly about how to do it better.
The teams in the Cabinet Office and DCLG who gave me such excellent support.
Two things I won’t miss:
The ‘noises off’. I have said enough about this already. Suffice it to say that it has been without doubt the most damaging thing to civil service morale.
Having ‘lines to take’. I quickly learnt that the secret to success at the Select Committee was to be Boycott and not Botham. It doesn’t make for an enjoyable experience for anyone though!
To succeed in the future the civil service has to do well at the big things and the small things.
It is a cliché to say that we live in momentous times but it is hard to think since the Second World War when the challenges have been greater.
· Securing economic growth
· Further reducing the deficit
· Protecting us from international terrorism
· Handling the repercussions from the Scotland Referendum
· Preparing for a possible referendum on our future membership of the European Union
· Supporting the current and next government on each these issues will be a major challenge.
At the same, we have to constantly remember that what we do and the services we deliver have a profound effect on ordinary people’s lives.
Our legitimacy, their trust in us, depends as much on how we handle the things that affect them personally as how we deal with the big issues of state.
I stand down from the Head of Civil Service job feeling very positive about what has been achieved in the last two years and optimistic about the civil service of the future.
With the right mix of support and challenge it can and will achieve great things.
Thank you.