By David Williams
5 March 2010
Whitehall departments are under-performing because ministers are not remaining in post long enough to see through their policies, two separate MPs’ reports have found.
The studies, by the Commons’ communities & local government and transport select committees, are the latest in a series to criticise the high turnover of ministers.
A March 5 study by the CLG committee described how the Department for Communities and Local Government has had three secretaries of state, three local government ministers and four housing ministers since it was established in 2006.
Chair Phyllis Starkey noted that the department ‘has yet to become the kind of “big hitter” it needs to be within Whitehall… It cannot help that officials serve an average tenure of just nine months and that, over the lifetime of the department so far, senior ministers have remained in post for barely a year.’
The committee has appealed to Prime Minister Gordon Brown to ‘take great account of the prerequisites for effective government when conducting ministerial reshuffles’.
The report also describes the department’s £877m efficiency target, to be met by March 2011, as ‘extremely challenging’, but warns that failure to meet it would ‘leave a very significant hole in the DCLG’s plans’.
A separate report, released yesterday by the Commons transport committee, noted that there had been five transport secretaries in the past five years.
‘Any company that changed its chief executive as frequently as happens with the DfT would be viewed with great suspicion by shareholders,’ said chair Louise Ellman.
Simon Parker, fellow at the Institute for Government, said strong leadership was much more likely from a well-established minister. ‘The civil service likes strong, clear leadership,’ he told Public Finance. ‘You’re much more likely to get that from someone who is in post with a clear agenda.
‘The civil service has to interact a great deal with a minister. If they know what that minister wants and what their personal style is, if they can get used to working with them, clearly that’s going to lead to better relationships and a smoother implementation of that minister’s strategy.’
Last year, the public administration select committee’s Good government inquiry made similar recommendations.
It called for more ministerial training, but concluded: ‘What is probably more crucial is leaving ministers in post for longer so they can cultivate the knowledge and relationships they need in order to govern well.’
The report added that the system of appointing ministers could ‘undermine’ good government by focusing on short-term politics rather than long-term stability.
But an official government response to that report argued: ‘It is also essential that the prime minister of the day should be able to structure the government as he or she sees fit to respond to new challenges and ensure that it is focused on the key issues.’
Last year’s study, Ministerial churn, by the think-tank Demos showed that the average secretary of state remained in post just 1.3 years – down from almost 3.5 years in the 1983-1987 Parliament.
5 March 2010
Whitehall departments are under-performing because ministers are not remaining in post long enough to see through their policies, two separate MPs’ reports have found.
The studies, by the Commons’ communities & local government and transport select committees, are the latest in a series to criticise the high turnover of ministers.
A March 5 study by the CLG committee described how the Department for Communities and Local Government has had three secretaries of state, three local government ministers and four housing ministers since it was established in 2006.
Chair Phyllis Starkey noted that the department ‘has yet to become the kind of “big hitter” it needs to be within Whitehall… It cannot help that officials serve an average tenure of just nine months and that, over the lifetime of the department so far, senior ministers have remained in post for barely a year.’
The committee has appealed to Prime Minister Gordon Brown to ‘take great account of the prerequisites for effective government when conducting ministerial reshuffles’.
The report also describes the department’s £877m efficiency target, to be met by March 2011, as ‘extremely challenging’, but warns that failure to meet it would ‘leave a very significant hole in the DCLG’s plans’.
A separate report, released yesterday by the Commons transport committee, noted that there had been five transport secretaries in the past five years.
‘Any company that changed its chief executive as frequently as happens with the DfT would be viewed with great suspicion by shareholders,’ said chair Louise Ellman.
Simon Parker, fellow at the Institute for Government, said strong leadership was much more likely from a well-established minister. ‘The civil service likes strong, clear leadership,’ he told Public Finance. ‘You’re much more likely to get that from someone who is in post with a clear agenda.
‘The civil service has to interact a great deal with a minister. If they know what that minister wants and what their personal style is, if they can get used to working with them, clearly that’s going to lead to better relationships and a smoother implementation of that minister’s strategy.’
Last year, the public administration select committee’s Good government inquiry made similar recommendations.
It called for more ministerial training, but concluded: ‘What is probably more crucial is leaving ministers in post for longer so they can cultivate the knowledge and relationships they need in order to govern well.’
The report added that the system of appointing ministers could ‘undermine’ good government by focusing on short-term politics rather than long-term stability.
But an official government response to that report argued: ‘It is also essential that the prime minister of the day should be able to structure the government as he or she sees fit to respond to new challenges and ensure that it is focused on the key issues.’
Last year’s study, Ministerial churn, by the think-tank Demos showed that the average secretary of state remained in post just 1.3 years – down from almost 3.5 years in the 1983-1987 Parliament.
