When David Cameron came to power, civil servants faced a wave of painful changes: cuts in real salaries, redundancies and spending controls, to name just three. But many also breathed a sigh of relief, as the new PM halted the endless organisational reshuffling that had distracted departments and delayed delivery under Labour. Often announced to meet a political need rather than to align organisations with their objectives, this tinkering had created a stream of new structures – each of which had to undertake a set of organisational changes before turning afresh to rethink policies that their predecessors had, in many cases, just begun to deliver.
That sigh of relief is now turning, in some areas, into a groan. With home secretary Theresa May’s break-up of the UK Borders Agency, its staff have now undergone three major reorganisations in five years (see p5) – a level of instability guaranteed to impede operations. Despite 2011’s clash over the relaxation of border checks between May and former Border Force chief Brodie Clarke, UKBA was improving. It may have abandoned some of its backlog of outstanding cases, but former head Lin Homer had largely throttled the flow of scandals that brought down several Labour ministers.
Of course, immigration remained a fraught topic: globalised travel, growing diversity, the recession, and an emotional public debate would make this a tough area for government even if its own operations were in good shape. Only too aware of the Home Office’s reputation as a graveyard of political careers, May was keen to be seen to be resolving the causes of her row with Brodie Clarke. But when independent inspector John Vine looked at the fracas, the problem he identified was poor communications between Home Office ministers, UKBA officials and the Border Force. It is not clear that the need to improve communications between these three parties is best achieved by creating yet another organisational boundary.
It’s obvious that policies are best realised by organisations configured around their objectives; but less obvious that minister-led restructurings are always conceived quite this strategically. Such changes have huge costs – just read the plea for stability from this week’s Frontliner (p24), a council care manager who’s found that the NHS’s state of perpetual revolution constrains partnership working (ironically, a key aim of the Department of Health’s own vast structural reforms). And it’s interesting to note that the departments currently making most progress – education, and work and pensions – have largely avoided tampering with their public bodies. The PM should renew his vow to avoid organisational tinkering – even if that denies ministers an easy way to get themselves out of a political hole. ?
Matt Ross, Editor. matt.ross@dods.co.uk