What are ministers trying to achieve here? Is it to save money (generally where these initiatives start), to provide more opportunities in the SCS for people outside London (admirable but does require a critical mass to enable people to move around, and could also be achieved by more remote working - obviously unacceptable to the current administration because Farage wouldn’t like it) or actually to improve the quality of decision making? The current emphasis on theme based hubs (economics in Darlington, AI in Manchester etc) suggests ministers think that decision making is too departmental but it seems odd to do that outside London but not in Whitehall and, of course, even themes are easily separated (AI might be pretty important to economics). Not surprisingly I’d simply reinvent the GOs: several departments all under a single management chain and charged with improving the knowledge of regional issues in Whitehall and improving the communication of Whitehall priorities to local partners. Unfortunately Corbyn had something similar in the 2017 Manifesto so it’ll never be considered.
I guess a lot depends on why the moves are made. If it's just replanting a centralised function somewhere else, for cost or emoloyment reasons or as a gesture, that may not achieve much (except for more jobs in the new region). But if it's part of a wider decentralisation of operational functions, then, having senior staff closer to regional communities and stakeholders, and able to convey that perspective back to Westminster, can be a real gain. With counterbalancing losses of course!
Interesting analysis - thanks. It is several years since I worked with senior civil servants, and even longer since I was one of them. But there seem to me two clear additional downsides. One is that it will not just damage relations between SCS and Ministers/Special Advisers/Permanent Secretaries. It will also damage relations within the SCS because they will presumably be spread around various locations. So informal interactions that currently happen across Whitehall will be less likely and less productive. A second drawback is that the scheme risks increasing the divides between departments, because they will probably be in different out-stations. This just at a time when we should be seeking to reduce boundaries and improve seamless decision making.
Meanwhile I query just how realistic it is to expect moves of this kind to reduce London bias in the system. Unless the offices are themselves regionally based, eg with defined responsibilities for the South West or North East, they will be dealing with nationwide issues and probably looking to London for an integrated picture. I don’t, for example, see why an SCS team based in Liverpool should be any more expert in the problems of East Anglia than a team based in London.
What are ministers trying to achieve here? Is it to save money (generally where these initiatives start), to provide more opportunities in the SCS for people outside London (admirable but does require a critical mass to enable people to move around, and could also be achieved by more remote working - obviously unacceptable to the current administration because Farage wouldn’t like it) or actually to improve the quality of decision making? The current emphasis on theme based hubs (economics in Darlington, AI in Manchester etc) suggests ministers think that decision making is too departmental but it seems odd to do that outside London but not in Whitehall and, of course, even themes are easily separated (AI might be pretty important to economics). Not surprisingly I’d simply reinvent the GOs: several departments all under a single management chain and charged with improving the knowledge of regional issues in Whitehall and improving the communication of Whitehall priorities to local partners. Unfortunately Corbyn had something similar in the 2017 Manifesto so it’ll never be considered.
I guess a lot depends on why the moves are made. If it's just replanting a centralised function somewhere else, for cost or emoloyment reasons or as a gesture, that may not achieve much (except for more jobs in the new region). But if it's part of a wider decentralisation of operational functions, then, having senior staff closer to regional communities and stakeholders, and able to convey that perspective back to Westminster, can be a real gain. With counterbalancing losses of course!
Interesting analysis - thanks. It is several years since I worked with senior civil servants, and even longer since I was one of them. But there seem to me two clear additional downsides. One is that it will not just damage relations between SCS and Ministers/Special Advisers/Permanent Secretaries. It will also damage relations within the SCS because they will presumably be spread around various locations. So informal interactions that currently happen across Whitehall will be less likely and less productive. A second drawback is that the scheme risks increasing the divides between departments, because they will probably be in different out-stations. This just at a time when we should be seeking to reduce boundaries and improve seamless decision making.
Meanwhile I query just how realistic it is to expect moves of this kind to reduce London bias in the system. Unless the offices are themselves regionally based, eg with defined responsibilities for the South West or North East, they will be dealing with nationwide issues and probably looking to London for an integrated picture. I don’t, for example, see why an SCS team based in Liverpool should be any more expert in the problems of East Anglia than a team based in London.
Good points - thank you Stephen!
I have added them to the main blog as not everyone reads comments.