3 October 2022: Expert Group on Public Health and Administration - D

Government Ministers sometimes need to be told that something they want to say or do is not a good idea or is just plain wrong. Nobody likes to be told “no”, or “you’re wrong”, and Ministers are people usually with a bit more sense of themselves. Senior civil servants need to be able to challenge their Minister, and a good Minister should want officials to do this for them. Top civil servants get paid well, it was said, because they need to have and use some specific and finely-honed skills to speak in ways that allow their top politicians to avoid problems. The official has to give the honest view, but the Minister may still be justified in going against advice, especially if they have a perspective not available to the adviser.

A neighbouring issue was moved to, being that of the time pressures and workload in Government. Again, the senior civil servants have to have the “nous” to know what the Minister needs to know and what can be dealt with without involving him or her. There is an unhelpful pressure towards short-termism due to the Westminster cycle. Indeed, Ministers too often change a number of times during a Parliament. Keeping moving people around makes it difficult to achieve accountability (it is as if it is deliberate) or to celebrate success (but they do that anyway).

Counsel spoke about the role of the dissenting voice as opposed to the Minister always hearing the mainstream voice. Officials need to bring in a range of voices to the attention of the Minister. There was reference to the US military process of “red teaming” to create a situation of challenging established positions, such as lines to take. There was an unexpected vote in favour of special advisers (“spads”) who could play the role of questioning the received wisdom. This bit felt very generous-spirited and open-minded (“officials need to be pro-active”, “different voices need to be heard”, “it is good to have to explain”, etc.) yet the reality seems so far from this pie flying through the sky in the comfort of the Expert Panel. Different voices add to the work. There is never enough time. People are precious about their area of work. These are the real contra-indicators to the idealised navel-gazing of the brave new world where opposing voices get heard. They are more likely to be de-platformed, de-monetised, and demonised.

The size and complexity of Government, in particular the parts like the NHS, is probably sees opening the door to pluralism as counter-productive. The are so many agencies and groups connecting to the NHS it is almost impossible to keep track of them all. It is even worse for the public to access the bit they need a service from. The “deliberate policy” of constant reorganisation, fragmentation, restructuring, marketisation and privatisation is making it increasingly difficult for the NHS to function in even a most basic way, let alone optimally. Some of the NHS changes have been dramatic, yet it is hard to find any restructuring that actually achieved the improvements they were said to justify. There was a bit of friction between two of the Group; the blustery bureaucrat and the articulate academic. Surprise, surprise the other civil servant agreed with big brother civil servant. In turn the Prof stood up for herself by highlighting the difference of opinion contained in a key point in the Expert Group Report.

Normally, new ministers are not given an induction. There was some training offered at the start of the Coalition Government which was welcomed (says the one who provided it, self-praise, and all that). Previously, the unofficial aim was simply to help Ministers know “how to behave” as opposed to being able to act for themselves. It is interesting to notice how out of the six members of the group, the two most vocal are the two civil servants. As a double-act, this writer worries that they are constantly morphing between being apologists for their fellow civil servants and being self-assured commentators on how to do government better. The four professors are much more reticent, apart from the occasional critical commentary by the one who clearly cannot sit still and let the neutering narrative go unopposed.

The day ended without any goals being scored, even though it was supposed to be everyone on the same team. Hopefully, the groundwork of Day 1 will be a sufficient launching-pad for some missiles to penetrate the armour-plated world of UK public administration on Day 2. We can but hope.