Very interesting piece - thanks Martin. But this sounds to me like reinventing the wheel. Concerns about civil service expertise have been floating around for at least 50 years. They were addressed by the Fulton report in 1968 which created the Civil Service Department and Civil Service College. Both were subsequently abolished under the Thatcher government in the early 1980s in the interest of improving efficiency. Instead, the recommendations of the Ibbs report led to more executive agencies and (ahem) the birth of the genuine Quango state.
I attended the Civil Service College on a number of occasions, including one of their longer three month courses, and I thought it was excellent. There was no ducking the issue of technical expertise. And there were serious attempts to improve civil servants’ knowledge of industry and the corporate sector. But the CSD never really acquired the necessary prestige or clout within the system, and was considered informally by many of my senior colleagues to be just a nuisance.
In terms of possible future developments, I think one change most would agree on is the need for individual civil servants to stay in post for longer so they can develop necessary expertise. If necessary, make it possible to promote them within post rather than forcing a job move every time someone moves up a grade. It would also help to create more space for ‘boffins’ that have real experience and expertise (with pay and status to match) but who don’t have to manage large teams or resources.
One further thought if I may. Specific forms of expertise - such as IT, economics and accounting skills - are clearly important. But the complexity of modern government creates many needs that aren’t well catered for outside. Procurement is one fairly clear example, and international trade negotiations probably another, but anyone looking at stories in the news will see that many major current issues require a government response that is essentially sui generis.
Very interesting piece - thanks Martin. But this sounds to me like reinventing the wheel. Concerns about civil service expertise have been floating around for at least 50 years. They were addressed by the Fulton report in 1968 which created the Civil Service Department and Civil Service College. Both were subsequently abolished under the Thatcher government in the early 1980s in the interest of improving efficiency. Instead, the recommendations of the Ibbs report led to more executive agencies and (ahem) the birth of the genuine Quango state.
I attended the Civil Service College on a number of occasions, including one of their longer three month courses, and I thought it was excellent. There was no ducking the issue of technical expertise. And there were serious attempts to improve civil servants’ knowledge of industry and the corporate sector. But the CSD never really acquired the necessary prestige or clout within the system, and was considered informally by many of my senior colleagues to be just a nuisance.
In terms of possible future developments, I think one change most would agree on is the need for individual civil servants to stay in post for longer so they can develop necessary expertise. If necessary, make it possible to promote them within post rather than forcing a job move every time someone moves up a grade. It would also help to create more space for ‘boffins’ that have real experience and expertise (with pay and status to match) but who don’t have to manage large teams or resources.
Absolutely! I couldn't agree more!
One further thought if I may. Specific forms of expertise - such as IT, economics and accounting skills - are clearly important. But the complexity of modern government creates many needs that aren’t well catered for outside. Procurement is one fairly clear example, and international trade negotiations probably another, but anyone looking at stories in the news will see that many major current issues require a government response that is essentially sui generis.