WIREDGOV

Prime ministers should have to show that changes to the civil service’s departmental structures serve the public interest rather than narrow party-political or personnel management goals, according to a new report from independent think tank the Institute for Government (IfG).

The report, Reshaping Government, argues that rushed departmental changes often leave little legacy beyond enormous disruption and a large bill for the taxpayer. Although reforms can work well when built around clear business needs – it cites as an example the 2001 creation of the Department of Work and Pensions – they are often carried out too fast and for the wrong reasons.

To ensure that these expensive and time-consuming organisational reforms produce more effective government, the IfG argues, the PM should be required to produce a supporting business case and a clear estimate of costs before implementing changes, and a specialist unit should assist with changes. There should also be an opportunity for select committees to scrutinise the proposals, and Parliament should be given a vote on substantial restructures.

Meanwhile, the government should explore and develop other to improve collaboration across departments without structural change – for example, by reforming spending review processes; reinvigorating cross-Whitehall performance management; using cross-departmental goals, budgets and teams; deploying specialist skills on a more cross-departmental basis; and building up capacity around the prime minister.

Tom Gash, the IfG’s Director of Research, said:

“When money is tight, there can be no justification for ill-thought-through restructuring that costs millions and helps no one. The next government must seek genuine reform of Whitehall – and that doesn’t mean chopping and changing departments. It means dealing with Whitehall’s inability to focus on long-term priorities and its weakness in co-ordinating policy across departments.”

Ian Watmore, the former Permanent Secretary of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills – founded in 2007, and merged with another department just two years later – commented:

“‘Machinery of government’ changes should only be considered when the end result is truly strategic; when the business case is compelling in the long term; and when the short- to medium-term dips in performance and increases in cost are properly understood. If all three of these are not in place then I would say: No, think about it hard; and then say No again. I strongly welcome the recommendations of the IfG report today.”