The Tories have been consulting on how to avoid the over–centralisation of the Blair/Brown years. But how do they keep government strong yet slim?
The Conservatives are not short of advice on how to run Whitehall if they win the next election. A stronger centre, a smaller centre, a more traditional structure, the prime minister and the chancellor working in adjoining offices – the options multiply.
Tory leader David Cameron and his team want to avoid what they believe were the mistakes made by Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown: an over-centralised operation interfering too much with departments. But how are the levers of power to be operated?
The Cameron team has been consulting widely: among the old and the bold of former ministers and former permanent secretaries; management consultants eager to make contacts with the Opposition team before the election; and bodies such as the Better Government Initiative and, more recently, the Institute for Government (of which I am a senior fellow).
The institute has organised a series of briefings for shadow ministers by former officials, as well as seminars about how Whitehall works. Since January, there has also been formal contact between the shadow Cabinet and permanent secretaries, though these are strictly constrained since officials are not allowed to provide advice.
The Tories believe that 10 Downing Street has grown too large since 1997. Some Conservatives look back to the small team in Number 10 under Margaret Thatcher and do not want anything smacking of a Prime Minister’s Department. Some former senior civil servants also argue that certain functions need to be returned from Number 10 to the Cabinet Office.
At the same time, Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne are considering transferring the way they have operated in opposition to Downing Street, using adjoining offices. Of course, the chancellor at present has an office in Number 11, but this is used mainly for social events and some seminars. This arrangement would formalise the duopoly at the top of government, in the hope of avoiding the Number 10/Treasury tensions that bedevilled the Blair years.
Yet a slimmer centre is also intended to be stronger: not micromanaging but setting objectives. The Institute for Government has just put out a report arguing that, ‘far from dominating Whitehall, the centre of government often looks curiously weak compared with other countries’ – with less power over people and budgets, and fewer sanctions if targets are missed. The question is whether the centre has the ability to set a clear strategic direction and to monitor the results.
But, as the Tories have been told, this is not just about the centre, but also about co-ordination over cross-cutting issues, such as public health and climate change. There is increasing support, both at the top levels of Whitehall and among the Cameron team, for developing specific budgets for such issues. Ministers would cross conventional departmental lines to take responsibility for such programmes.
However, Cameron has received strong advice that changes to the machinery of government by creating and reshaping departments are generally not worth the effort. The transitional costs often exceed the benefits, as underlined by the fiasco of the formation and dismantling of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, all within two years.
But now there is the problem of what to do with the enlarged Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Kenneth Clarke, the shadow business secretary, is not alone in thinking it is too unwieldy.
Yet there is far less attention about what happens away from the centre in the executive agencies and the variety of arm’s-length public bodies, which control large budgets and big areas of administration. It is there that the effectiveness of policy is often determined. But the traditional focus on hierarchical departments neglects this fragmentation and diversity.
Similarly, all the talk of a cull of quangos misses the point that the ones that account for most of the money runs services that voters want.
If they were abolished, many of their functions would have to be taken over by departments. Working out a policy for service delivery agencies is as important, if perhaps less newsworthy, than re-creating The West Wing in Downing Street.
Peter Riddell is chief political commentator of The Times and senior fellow of the Institute for Government
