15 January 2014
Dear Bernard
It was a pleasure to meet you
- and all our guests - on 27th November last year. I thought the
discussion was extremely illuminating and I thank all of them for their candour
as well as, of course, yourself for so ably chairing the dinner
deliberations. I don't intend to summarise
what was a very wide ranging as well as interesting discussion. However I
thought it would be helpful to now set out those areas where I felt there was
some consensus.
I was very pleased that the
first area of consensus was around the proposition that there is a future for
the permanent and impartial civil service. In relation to the challenges facing
the civil service it was quite clear that despite steep reductions in overall
staffing - down from 500,000 to 375,000 over the past three years - there
remain very high expectations for its future role, both in terms of policy and
delivery, at the same time as unanimity that there will not be more public
funding in the future.
Senior public servants are an
aspirational group of employees and, as I mentioned, the FDA's own terms
of reference include a commitment to improvement and efficiency. Whilst the FDA
would caution against the notion that reducing expenditure on the civil service
can be continued with no deleterious impacts, we are positive about looking for
solutions and meeting future challenges.
The key problems raised
related to skills, turnover and retention of the best talent, and
accountability. We share concern for all those issues - as our alternative
White Paper highlighted - as well as a number of others that were raised: the
devolution/localism challenge by which inevitably the state becomes more
de-centred; and the important issue of the changing role, expectations and
skills of politicians themselves.
Specifically on the issue of
turnover, we acknowledge that in an era of fixed term Parliaments and,
seemingly, more ‘fixed term’ Ministers there is a need to look at the rapidity
with which key officials move. We would also say that to retain the best -
whether starting on fast track or those who have reached the highest levels -
there needs to be a greater appreciation of their contribution both in terms of
the respect they are given by Ministers and media and in terms of reward.
As the report you yourself
circulated made clear, all too often the job of speaking truth unto power is
denigrated or curtailed. There is a danger that a culture is developing whereby
a still great British institution is the butt of constant criticism -
“backstairs sniping” in the words of Lord Butler - and the easy focus for blame
when Government fails.
This is to be guarded against
as low morale undermines effectiveness. A dissatisfaction rate of 95% amongst
our members cannot therefore be ignored for ever. That said we also accept
that when there are
faults it may be appropriate that senior public servants should be held to
account.
Turning to the specific issue of
accountability, we were pleased that there was some consensus for example with
regards to the introduction of EMOs. That said any new policy such as this -
which is undoubtedly significant and the consequences unknown - should in our
view be reviewed in 12 months’ time.
There remains the outstanding
issue of accountability to Parliament of those other than SROs. Confirmatory
hearings were referenced as were the notion of Secretaries of State appearing
at the same time as their Permanent Secretary. You may be interested to know we
met Margaret Hodge shortly after the dinner and discussed this item.
Alternative models were requested.
As you will recall we also
discussed pay. We were pleased that there did seem to be some consensus that
pay is a key issue even if it was also stated that within the current financial
envelope there is little opportunity to manoeuvre on this issue.
The example of New Zealand -
where the civil service is contracted to deliver the Government’s programme but
paid considerably more than in UK - was interesting and perhaps should be more
widely known. The notion that increased accountability goes hand in hand with
increased reward was well made by a number of attendees. Other international
comparisons were made for example that in Scotland Senior Civil Servants are
trained by the Parliament and not their own Departments.
The point that a well
rewarded, highly motivated and extremely professional civil service can indeed
save millions of pounds was also made loud and clear - and not just by the FDA.
If that is indeed a shared view then I believe it is incumbent on ourselves to
inform and progress this issue in months to come.
The FDA will endeavour to do
this as it is our sincere view that if, as expected, the economy continues to
pick up the problems of retention will turn into a crisis for the next
Government unless this nettle is grasped soon.
Finally we discussed the
proposal for a Parliamentary Commission. This clearly depends on cross party
and indeed Government support. I think it was accepted that a Commission could
be helpful and could take place at the same time as Civil Service Reform Plan
implementation, as the latter does not address all the outstanding issues. What
was less clear is what the precise remit of any such Commission would be.
Our view remains that such a
Commission would be helpful although we do not believe the current civil
service is broken: on the contrary we believe that there is much to be positive
about. However a cross party look at some of its problems, including the pay
gap with the private sector, would be sensible over the next twelve
months. The FDA therefore stands ready to work with those at the dinner on
the potential Terms of Reference for the Commission. Please therefore do invite
us to any follow up meetings on that matter.
I will ask Steve Barwick to
contact your office in due course to ensure that we keep in touch on all these
matters. Meanwhile may I once again thank you for your - and all others’ -
input and I look forward to meeting you again in due course.
Best wishes
sent on behalf of
Dave Penman
GENERAL SECRETARY
by
Steve Barwick
Senior Policy and Account Director
telephone: 020 7592 9592
mobile: 07826 872 375
twitter @connect_comms
Third Floor. Millbank Tower. Millbank.
London. SW1P 4QP
www.connectpa.co.uk
CONNECT TRAINING: "One of
the best courses I have ever been on, and great to interact with like minded
professionals." - click here for more
information
Connect Communications is a trading name of Connect Public
Affairs Ltd, registered in England: 03449749; registered office: First Floor,
Thavies Inn House, 3-4 Holborn Circus, London EC1N 2HA
This email, its content and any files transmitted with it are
confidential, and are intended only for the addressee. If you are not the
addressee, you may not print, copy, use or rely on the contents – please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone (020 7222 3533), delete the
e-mail and any attachments and destroy any copies made.
All content is copyright, and remains the intellectual property
of the author. No part may be reproduced without the prior written permission
of Connect Communications.
Opinions, conclusions and
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business
of Connect Communications shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by
it.