I’ll be honest. When I hear that a Government Minister has made a speech on Civil Service reform and modernisation, in my heart I expect not to like what they’ve got to say. More often than not, I don’t. There’s a tendency for politicians to see us bureaucrats as being an obstacle to change, a barrier between the world they want and where we are now. Accordingly, reform and modernisation are a shorthand for giving the Civil Service a bloody good kicking.
Don’t get me wrong. As a bloodied veteran of the public sector trenches, I would be the last to suggest that all is well. But, living the experience every day for more than thirty-seven years gives you a perspective that politicians seldom see. They’re, for obvious reasons, several steps removed from the reality of service delivery, the daily battle to achieve not the targets set necessarily, but to do your best and achieve something tangible that is for the public good.
So, John Glen’s recent speech to the Institute for Government, just ten weeks after he became the Minister for Civil Service Reform, was always going to grab my attention.
And, actually, it wasn’t a bad speech. Yes, he talked about reducing numbers - hardly novel, or a surprise for that matter - but there was a sense that he perhaps understands some of the changes that are needed. His speech revolved around three key themes -embedding technology, embracing simplicity, and enabling people’s potential.
There can be no doubt that we need to use technology more effectively and I’ve seen much new technology introduced over the course of my career, some of it better than others. But AI is, according to Mr Glen, a potential game changer. Admittedly, for a dinosaur like myself, the impact is likely to be minor but, if it can make it easier for our customers (a word that I still vaguely struggle with in this context) to comply or to get what they need, then it can only be a good thing.
That might also allow for a smaller Civil Service and, whilst you never want to see jobs lost unduly, we will never be a group that attracts mass public support. If the public want fewer bureaucrats and administrators, that’s what they should get, so long as the potential consequences are broadly understood and accepted. Alternatively, it might free people up to do the jobs that currently aren’t done and might benefit from attention.
I’m slightly more cynical about “embracing simplicity”, in that much, if not all, of the complexity is the result of Government intervention, passing more laws. Now I’m not saying that Government shouldn’t be doing that, but the consequence of more complex legislation is that it becomes harder to administer. But, coming back to how technology can be our friend, enabling more and more people to get the information they need without the need for human intervention should be a good thing.
As for “enabling people’s potential”, there does appear to be a little wishful thinking going on. To suggest that sinews are being strained in order to make pay rates in certain key roles become competitive might imply that salaries have been too low for too long. And I cannot bring myself to believe that Ministers really want to make Civil Service salaries properly competitive, especially after everything that has been said by Government ministers in the recent past.
The rest of it was a bit “motherhood and apple pie”, talking about making it easier to get rid of poor performers and improving management skills. And there was the mandatory warning about staff working from home. I've already addressed this - it's about where people are most effective, and about management that addresses poor performance and has the right data to judge - but it's clear that the Government aren't going to let up on this.
Of course, the probability that Mr Glen is going to be around long enough to actually have any impact appears to be vanishingly small. I wonder what the Labour Party is thinking...
No comments:
Post a Comment