Ministerial Training
141. So far in this chapter we have made recommendations
which we believe would create a slightly more stable environment
for civil servants to work in—which can only be beneficial
to their ability to discharge their duties. Nonetheless, we recognise
that some degree of volatility in structure and key personnel
will always be part of the political environment. We also recognise
that it is inevitable that some ministers will have little or
no experience of leading large organisations, or little sector-specific
knowledge. The Civil Service needs to work around that; but this
does not mean that ministers cannot themselves do more to mitigate
its effects. One key way of managing this is providing appropriate
training for ministers.
142. Historically, Britain does not provide its ministers
with much in the way of formal training. Baroness Shephard described
what happened when she first became a minister:
We had some training. It was 20 minutes with
Mr Butler now Lord Butler and it consisted of the three new ministers,
John Redwood, David Maclean and me, going into a room with Lord
Butler and Lord Butler saying, "I wonder if you've read Edwina
Currie's memoirs. It is so impressive that she began her ministerial
career by setting out a list of objectives." I thought: "Where
have I come? What is this organisation that thinks it is curious
to have objectives?" That was my training.[107]
She went on to say that some more training would
have been useful in her case.
143. Change, however, is afoot. The Government has
recognised that training for ministers is beneficial to good government;
Hilary Armstrong has written to us that "it has become increasingly
anomalous that Ministers do not have access to a professional
development programme".[108]
To address that anomaly, Ms Armstrong was working (before the
change of Prime Minister) in conjunction with other ministers,
primarily Rt Hon Baroness Amos and Rt Hon Des Browne MP, and with
the National School of Government, to expand the opportunities
for professional development available to ministers. Recent events
have included induction seminars for new ministers, a two-day
leadership event for Parliamentary Secretaries and Whips, group
workshops and individual briefing sessions. The Cabinet Office
has provided us with some details of ministerial learning and
development since May 2005, which we append to this report.[109]
144. Turnout on some of the events organised by the
National School appears to have been reasonably impressive; for
example, 32 ministers have attended financial and risk management
seminars since May 2005, and 32 attended the leadership event
for Parliamentary Secretaries in 2006.[110]
We do not, of course, know how many ministers attended events
of this nature before May 2005. We also know that departments
do provide varying degrees of induction to ministers who are new
in post, and of course it is inevitable that a great deal of learning
is done on the job.
145. Nonetheless there is much that the learning
and development programme does not cover. There is very little,
for example, on generic management. The FDA have told us that
there ought to be a fully fleshed out programme:
Ministers are no different to any other individual
in a work environment in that the needs will differ from person
to person. For some, for example, even basic IT training might
be appropriate whilst for others tactful assistance in interpersonal
skills might be beneficial.[111]
One suggestion that has been made to us is that while
ministers are willing to be trained in technical matters, there
is a stigma around attending too much training, especially in
areas such as interpersonal skills; admitting a need is seen as
a sign of weakness. Again, we cite the evidence of the FDA, who
told us that there seems to have been an unhelpful culture historically
in that ministers felt reluctant to publicly acknowledge that
they were participating in such training and development. They
contrast this with Sir Gus O'Donnell, who they say has been "proud
to acknowledge" that he continued to take part in personal
development programmes and take advantage of mentoring and coaching
since his appointment as Cabinet Secretary.[112]
146. When we spoke to former ministers, they denied
that there was any such stigma. Charles Clarke told us that some
ministers were resistant to training, but that he did not think
this was very general.[113]
Nick Raynsford elaborated on this point:
I do not think stigma is the problem. I think
the problem is the lack of a culture being inculcated from the
top, encouraging and indeed requiring ministers to take part in
appropriate training events. Secondly, it is the timetable to
which most ministers work, where pressures are enormous and it
is very easy to commit yourself in advance to something and then
on the day to say, "I really cannot justify this because
there are so many other pressing requirements of time".[114]
He cited the example of a training session he had
been invited to speak at, in around the year 2001, where he had
prepared to discuss with colleagues what he had learned from the
experience of piloting the Greater London Authority Bill through
the House. A number of people signed up, and Mr Raynsford told
us that he "put quite a lot of effort" into drawing
out lessons for new ministers, but in the event only one turned
up on the day. The others bowed out, citing work pressures.
147. We should not overrate the value of formal training;
all the former ministers we spoke to agreed that spending longer
in posts was more important. Mr Clarke was particularly candid:
Changing government departments frequently for
ministers is, in my opinion, a very, very bad thing indeed and
has been a very significant problem in some areas. But I do not
think that is just about the training. You have to be a very,
very, very talented individual to get hold of your department,
if it is a major department, in less than about a year.[115]
Nonetheless, there appeared to be consensus that
a new culture of public commitment to training needed to be inculcated.
Mr Raynsford also made the related point that "encouraging
a culture where people learn from each other's successes and failures
would help to improve the quality of ministerial performance".[116]
He talked about encouraging exit interviews with ministers leaving
posts, to learn from their experiences—something that the
Government has no plans to do—and he talked about systematic
performance appraisal for ministers, which he found to be absent
from the current system. We would be interested to see any of
this at work.
148. One final observation of Mr Raynsford was of
great interest:
I was very struck in international meetings how
many ministers from other countries are appointed on the basis
of their technical expertise in the area in which they have responsibility
rather than simply because of political background. We have a
culture which rightly emphasises the importance of political accountability
to Parliament, and that means the overwhelming majority of ministers
come into the job without any technical expertise in the area
that they are responsible for. I think, in a sense, that emphasises
the importance of making sure that there is consideration of their
managerial skills and that there is some support and training
to help them fulfil those roles.[117]
149. Our witnesses made a compelling case for
more professional development for ministers. We are heartened
that the Government has already accepted this case, and we are
pleased to see the efforts being made in this direction by several
ministers in conjunction with the National School. These efforts
go against the historical grain, and so should be applauded.
150. There is more, however, that could be done
to professionalise the ministerial side of the business of government.
We would be interested to see some of the ideas discussed in our
evidence sessions put into practice, if only on a trial basis.
Exit interviews to find how the support given to ministers had
in fact met their needs seem eminently sensible. Systematic performance
appraisal is a worthwhile discipline. We see no reason why the
Government could not adopt these and other, similar approaches.
151. Above all, though, it is the culture of commitment
to professional development that needs to be inculcated among
ministers. We have spoken much in this report about how ministers
require a professional Civil Service, and how that can be achieved;
but it is a truism that leaders of an organisation should not
expect that which they are not prepared to give. Both ministers
and civil servants should be equipped with the right skills for
their differing roles.
96 
