| 1. | Although this report will look at ways in which performance can, and must, be improved, we should not lose sight of the very many excellent things that are done by excellent people every day. It is a sign of the professionalism of the existing Civil Service that we take so many of these for granted. (Paragraph 11)
|
| | |
| 2. | We welcome both the concept and the execution of the Departmental Capability Reviews. It is particularly valuable that their findings are being published; it gives us a benchmark against which to measure future performance. We hope that they will be repeated at regular intervals. (Paragraph 22)
|
| | |
| 3. | However, if future reviews are conducted in the same way as the current ones, there will be doubts about their objectivity. Any assertion of improvement will be questioned on grounds of the reviewers' potential vested interest. We recommend that future review teams should be externally managed. (Paragraph 23)
|
| | |
| 4. | The Capability Reviews paint a bleak picture of Civil Service performance. They suggest a lack of leadership and serious deficiencies in service delivery. But these results do at least expose the scale of the challenge. Departments now have a benchmark against which to measure progress. Ensuring civil servants have the right skills will be essential to improving services in future. (Paragraph 33)
|
| | |
| 5. | There is a clear consensus that the Civil Service is weak in its performance management. We accept that this problem is not unique to the Civil Service. Nonetheless, it is clear that the way poor performance is currently managed is not acceptable. A radically different approach may be needed, and it should be a top priority for the Cabinet Office to find one. (Paragraph 37)
|
| | |
| 6. | There may well be scope to expand the use of accredited qualifications in the Civil Service, but we should not lose sight of the crucial importance of practical experience. The skills learnt through experience should be borne in mind before civil servants without professional qualifications are dismissed as "amateurs". (Paragraph 56)
|
| | |
| 7. | Nonetheless, while we should not underestimate the Civil Service's existing skills, there ought to be some way of measuring them more formally. It is clear that the Government cannot currently assess its existing skill levels, let alone identify how to fill gaps. Government Skills needs to concentrate on developing a robust means of assessing individuals' skills. Accredited vocational qualifications would certainly help, and there may also be a case for expanding the use of academic qualifications in assessing the skills of people at the higher levels of the service. (Paragraph 57)
|
| | |
| 8. | It is not clear how the National School of Government can simultaneously be "demand-led" and focus on providing the professional skills set out in PSG. The Capability Reviews indicate that most departments are poor at "building capability", which in turn suggests that they have not been effective in identifying the skills they need. The NSG should work closely with departments and the centre to ensure a coherent strategy is maintained based on identified skills gaps. (Paragraph 65)
|
| | |
| 9. | In identifying those skills gaps, the Government should look both to Government Skills and to the Sunningdale Institute. Both of these are potentially worthwhile innovations; but both should look for more ministerial input, to make sure that the Civil Service can respond to Ministerial needs. (Paragraph 66)
|
| | |
| 10. | Measuring the success of training is not easy. The goal of training is to change behaviours over time, but it will be difficult to detect whether this is happening and to what extent it is attributable to training. Monitoring the demand for courses is still a relevant judge of the effectiveness of provision; revenue is surely one of the major tests of a demand-led organisation, and reputation is a relevant factor in determining demand. Success should be measured by both reputation and revenue. (Paragraph 67)
|
| | |
| 11. | We recognise the commitment of the Civil Service to training. We have seen ourselves that staff are broadly positive about the opportunities open to them, and this is commendable. However, there is no point in offering training if there is insufficient time to take it. Staff complements should be calculated in such a way as to allow staff to make any necessary time commitment to personal development. (Paragraph 73)
|
| | |
| 12. | If career civil servants have limited opportunities of getting to the top, the Government will not get the benefits of talented people joining lower down the service. (Paragraph 85)
|
| | |
| 13. | We do not see any evidence that external recruitment is a threat to the traditional Civil Service values of permanence and impartiality. No organisation should be closed—outsiders can bring different skills and perspectives which should be welcomed. Every organisation can benefit from some degree of "ventilation". This should not, however, automatically lead to recruitment from the private sector. Much of the relevant skills and expertise for Civil Service work is likely to be found in the wider public sector. (Paragraph 87)
|
| | |
| 14. | We do not understand why the target is that "about half" of postings in the Senior Civil Service should be externally advertised. This particular target seems arbitrary and inexact, and does not seem to be based around identified skills gaps. If the Government does want to set a target, there should be a clear evidence base for it. (Paragraph 88)
|
| | |
| 15. | We believe there are difficulties with the current practice of recruiting directly to very senior posts. The current pay differentials may serve to demotivate internal staff and discourage talented staff entering the Civil Service early in their career. It is also problematic that new entrants can take a considerable amount of time to find their feet in the Civil Service, if those new entrants have important responsibilities. We believe many of these difficulties would be alleviated if external recruitment was focused slightly lower down the management chain. (Paragraph 89)
|
| | |
| 16. | Interchange between sectors is laudable; Whitehall can only benefit from first-hand knowledge of the private, voluntary and wider public sectors. Sir Gus O'Donnell has been an advocate of interchange between the Civil Service and voluntary sector organisations—as he says, this is increasingly important in a world where those organisations are being encouraged to provide public services. We hope that Government is also encouraging civil servants to get experience of other parts of the public sector. (Paragraph 92)
|
| | |
| 17. | Staff development should not be at the expense of doing the job properly. We are concerned that the current emphasis on wide experience is affecting the Civil Service's ability to carry out some of its core functions. A four year norm should be just what it says; it emphatically should not be a four year maximum. Although individuals should not stay forever in one post, we need to recognise that some stability is also necessary. (Paragraph 98)
|
| | |
| 18. | There is scope for more active career management in the Civil Service. We are encouraged by some of the schemes being implemented in individual departments and agencies. Departments should identify and nurture their own talent, beyond the confines of the centrally administered Fast Stream. The centre should do more to encourage and support such departmental initiatives. (Paragraph 100)
|
| | |
| 19. | The current system of delegating pay and grading arrangements to individual departments may have its merits, but it can also be a barrier to staff development. Care should be taken that such arrangements do not militate against the free movement of talented staff across the Civil Service to develop their skills. (Paragraph 105)
|
| | |
| 20. | There may well be substantial scope for efficiency savings in the Civil Service, but headcount cuts are a poor tool for achieving those savings. Setting numerical targets for departments is crude and counterproductive. (Paragraph 112)
|
| | |
| 21. | Dramatic changes to the Cabinet Office are underway, not least the seemingly complete rebirth of its Corporate Development Group. We welcome this development. When compared to the efficiency programme, the Government's policies on skills and capability are lacking in cohesion and lacking in drive from the centre. Yet they are just as important. To rectify this imbalance, the Cabinet Office needs an effective replacement for the Corporate Development Group, with both the credibility to influence other departments and the power to direct. (Paragraph 122)
|
| | |
| 22. | Capability and skills are closely linked. The Government needs a co-ordinated approach to tackling both issues. If the responsibility within government for both now sits within the same Group, then that is a significant step in the right direction. (Paragraph 123)
|
| | |
| 23. | We see merit in Lord Butler's suggestion that there should be a National Performance Office, equivalent to the National Audit Office, that scrutinises Civil Service performance in detail on more than a financial basis. It is Parliament's job to hold the Executive to account; therefore the National Performance Office should have the same parliamentary status as the NAO. (Paragraph 127)
|
| | |
| 24. | It is intended that the Departmental Capability Reviews will be repeated after two years. We believe they should become a regular feature, and that future reviews should be carried out by the new National Performance Office. Standards of government will be increased both by external audit and greater parliamentary accountability. Such a body could also provide a regular performance report on government, in the spirit of the government's now discontinued annual reports. (Paragraph 129)
|
| | |
| 25. | Government does not have to be an entirely HR-free zone. The Prime Minister must bear in mind when managing ministerial moves that these can have a significant effect on Civil Service performance. (Paragraph 140)
|
| | |
| 26. | 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. (Paragraph 150)
|
| | |
| 27. | 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. (Paragraph 151)
|
| | |
| 28. | 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. (Paragraph 152)
|
