• News
• Publications
• Articles
• Events
• Research

• Current Releases
• Archive

You are in: news

‘No price for failure’ in Whitehall

07 August 2006

Top civil servants feel they are not held accountable for poor performance and that Parliamentary scrutiny of them is ineffective, according to new research published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) today (Mon).

ippr researchers conducted a year of fieldwork with over 65 in depth interviews, including unprecedented access to 10 Permanent Secretaries and 8 Ministers. ippr’s researchers were told by one Permanent Secretary:

"The Public Accounts Committee can be very difficult but it is not hard-edged accountability … we are not fired as a result of a bad performance. Indeed appearing before the PAC doesn’t change the price of fish!"

A survey of senior civil servants obtained by ippr following a Freedom of Information request supports this view and paints a damning picture of frustration with performance management in Whitehall. Asked whether poor performance is dealt with effectively in their own department, only officials in the Treasury scored more than one in four (with 32 per cent). The worst departments, where less than one in ten believe poor performance is dealt with effectively, were:

• DfT (5 per cent)
• Home Office (6 per cent)
• DEFRA (9 per cent)
• DCLG (9 per cent)
• MoD (9 per cent)
• DTI (10 per cent)
• FCO (10 per cent)

ippr’s research reveals that across Whitehall, just one in three senior civil servants hold any professional qualifications. One Minister told ippr’s researchers:

"I was regularly frustrated by the lack of expertise in the department. People complain that we spend too much on outside consultants and others, but often we don’t have a choice."

Another Minister told ippr:

"The most fundamental problem with the civil service is that it is not accountable to anybody. It is certainly not accountable to ministers. [The lack of accountability] explains why the pace of change in Whitehall is best described as glacial."

But ippr’s research suggests that some civil servants would welcome better internal performance management and more effective external accountability. One Permanent Secretary told ippr researchers:

"We should be externally assessed... the truth is that if [external scrutiny] is good enough for Doncaster council then it’s good enough for the Home Office. I don’t have any problem with the accountability laser-focused on me."

Another Permanent Secretary said:

"As a group, Permanent Secretaries have managed to duck accountability. A number of recent changes are beginning to change things but it needs to be made stronger. Permanent Secretaries should be held to account for making sure that their departments are ‘fit for purpose’, and that they have the right capabilities in place … we do need to find a mechanism for much greater and rigorous scrutiny of Permanent Secretary performance. I think it is very difficult to argue against the logic that this be a form of external scrutiny."

Commenting on the current internal accountability mechanisms, another senior civil servant said:

"Why is Whitehall poor at delivery? Because they’re aren’t any rewards or sanctions in place for civil service delivery."

Another said:

"Internal performance scrutiny is not taken too seriously. The ‘Performance Partnership Agreements’ was effectively a self-evaluation process, with permanent secretaries writing letters to each other and themselves."

Another said:

"The Civil Service Management Board is a complete joke. And an expensive one, since it means that Whitehall is deprived of any collective sense of purpose." 

One Permanent Secretary was clear that officials could be identified and held accountable for their performance, above and beyond ministerial responsibility. The Perm Sec said:

"On a case-by-case approach it is usually fairly easy to see whether a particular failure of delivery was down to the official or down to the political direction."

ippr’s interviews revealed deep seated frustration with the lack of power held by Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell. One Permanent Secretary told ippr:

"Because Perm Secs are accounting officers in their own right there is no thick line of accountability between the Cab Sec and Perm Secs. This needs changing. I would like to see the Cabinet Secretary have the power to remove permanent secretaries."

Another Permanent Secretary said:

"In many ways the position of Cabinet Secretary is the worst job in Whitehall. The lack of formal power undermines his effectiveness ... I wouldn’t want the job."

Another Permanent Secretary said:

"Is there a culture of ambition in Whitehall? I think this is the central issue for us and the jury is still out."

Another senior civil servant said:

"The single biggest challenge in Whitehall is getting things done! It is great in emergencies but on the day-to-day stuff is it amazing what tactics you have to resort to, to get things done, especially if you want to take on conventional thinking. There is an inherent and institutional resistance to serious change."

ippr’s research also reveals the frustration of Ministers. One told ippr:

"The most staggering thing about Whitehall is the complete lack of accountability. I would like to write a report evaluating what has gone wrong with the spate of disastrous civil service-led IT procurement programmes. I would include an Appendix listing all those officials who have been sacked as a result of these failures. It would be a blank page!"

Another Minister told ippr:

"There is simply no price for failure in Whitehall. No price whatsoever. It is this anomaly that really makes the civil service stand out in comparison to the rest of the public sector."

One senior public service leader agreed, saying:

"For most programmes, officials know that they won’t be there to face the music. This engenders a culture that does not prize accountability."

One senior civil servant told ippr they believe it suits both sides:

"The ‘accountability fudge’ we have now protects ministers and officials. Ministers can say "not me guv" while officials hide behind the minister. This is not in the interest of effective delivery. This is not in the interest of effective government."

Nick Pearce, ippr Director said:

"There is no price for failure in Whitehall. Strong public services depend on high quality civil servants in high performing departments. There are plenty of hardworking, even heroic civil, servants but what we need now is systemic reform. 

"Lines of accountability in Whitehall are ill-defined and too often responsibility falls between the cracks. Politicians and civil servants duck and dive behind each other and no one takes clear responsibility for driving improvement. Failure goes unpunished and success unrewarded. The civil service will never achieve consistently high performance without external accountability and effective performance management."

ippr’s report recommends:

• The creation of a strong, Civil Service Executive, headed by a civil service Head. The Head of the Civil Service would, in consultation with the Prime Minister and individual Ministers, appoint and line-manage Permanent Secretaries. They would have the power to reward high performers and remove under-performers, in the same way as the private sector and in front line public services. They would also be responsible for strategic management of core corporate functions and services, like human resources, knowledge management, information and communication technology, and financial management. Ministers, of course, would not only retain control over resources, but would have a power of veto over senior appointments. And, most importantly, they would remain responsible for setting policy and providing adequate resources.
• The establishment of a new governing body for the civil service. Appointed by Parliament, this would be responsible for setting the strategic direction for the service, appointing a civil service head, scrutinizing performance, and laying out what is expected of civil servants and ministers and, where necessary, managing disagreements between them.
• The enhancement of Parliament’s powers to hold Ministers to account and new powers to do the same for civil servants.
• The introduction of external assessment for all Whitehall departments. Departmental Capability Reviews would be conducted by an independent body outside Whitehall.
• A new Department for Prime Minister and Cabinet with a responsibility for co-ordinating government policy and policy development. As in Australia and New Zealand, this new Department would provide a strong centre but would also be open, transparent and accountable to Parliament.
• The enshrinement of these reforms in a new Civil Service Act. The traditional doctrine of ministerial responsibility, though vague and contested, remains powerful and it will be very difficult to establish new and clearer lines of accountability unless ministerial responsibility is reformulated in statute.

Whitehall’s Black Box: accountability and performance in the senior civil service by Guy Lodge and Ben Rogers is available from www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports

Notes to editors

ippr’s year long research project included:

• Over 65 interviews with key Whitehall stakeholders. This consisted of 40 interviews with senior civil servants – including 10 Permanent Secretaries - and 8 Ministers. We also interviewed ex-civil servants, academics, Special Advisers, MPs, and leaders from the public, voluntary and private sector.
• Extensive desk-based research and a literature review of the history of civil service reform and recent writings on government, governance and public management reform.
• Analysis of official documents, including some obtained uniquely by ippr under FOI.
• A series of ippr research seminars with experts from the UK and abroad.
• A focus group seminar with civil service Fast Streamers to test our analysis and findings.
• A research paper exploring international trends in civil service reform and relevant lessons from overseas; and a case study on HM Revenue and Custom.

The full report of the Senior Civil Service Leadership and Skill Survey was obtained by ippr under a Freedom of Information request and is available on request from the ippr press office and will be published in the ippr website http://www.ippr.org/research/teams/project.asp?id=865&tID=88&pID=865

Contacts

Richard Darlington, ippr media manager, 020 7470 6177 / 07738 320 645 / r.darlington@ippr.org

Matt Jackson, ippr senior media officer, 020 7339 0007 / 07753 719 289 / m.jackson@ippr.org