The British Civil Service was once a byword for efficiency as well as incorruptibility. I'm as fascinated as I am appalled by the extraordinary decline in our quality of government. Perhaps this thread can become a place where we explore what the reasons behind this may be.
Amateurs in charge of government business
Telegraph
05/06/2007
The Government's chronic inability to manage costly IT schemes effectively is well documented - indeed, it has become one of New Labour's trademarks. This morning's report from the Commons Public Accounts Committee helps to explain why Whitehall gets it so wrong, so often.
At the heart of the problem is a slapdash approach to the management of high-value projects that would not be tolerated in the private sector. The fact that the Government spends rather more than £500 billion of taxpayers' cash each year seems to have inculcated a cavalier approach to value for money that is costing the country dear.
The committee highlights two specific areas of weakness in the management of complex IT programmes.
First, the high turnover rate among senior civil servants means there is little continuity in the running of schemes. The MPs found that half the senior civil servants in charge of IT projects are doing such work for the first time. In an area where expertise is invaluable, it seems - quite perversely - to be positively discouraged. This "lack of relevant experience, combined with a regular turnover of post-holders, adds unnecessary risk to the management of IT-enabled change", observes the PAC.
The committee is even more exercised by the stupefying level of neglect shown by government ministers. The prudent expenditure of public funds should be a priority for all ministers of the Crown. Yet the PAC has discovered that in many of the most sensitive IT schemes, the senior officials in charge had not held a single meeting with ministers to discuss progress. This unforgivable laxity was found in 20 per cent of all "mission critical and high risk" computer systems.
In a further 28 per cent of these projects, ministers held meetings with officials fewer than four times a year. That means almost half of these multi-billion-pound projects are being invigilated in the most cursory way. The PAC rightly insists that ministers have a duty to ensure they are briefed "fully and candidly" on risks, progress and cost escalation. The failure to do so has led to such well-documented disasters as the enormous cost and time overruns in the computerisation of NHS records and the multi-billion-pound fiasco of the introduction of tax credits.
It hardly augurs well for the introduction of identity cards.
These failings expose a deeper weakness in the way government does business. There is often an air of starry-eyed naivety about Whitehall's contract negotiations with private sector companies, many of which must be laughing all the way to the bank. The same mindset was in play in the disastrous renegotiation of GPs' and dentists' contracts.
The common factor in all these cases is the sheer amateurishness of the government machine when it comes to cutting a deal. If the men from the ministry are incapable of driving a hard bargain, they should get people in who can.
-------------
Ministers lose grip on £14bn IT
Telegraph
05/06/2007
Ministers are failing to keep a grip on Government computer projects that cost the taxpayer up to £14 billion a year, a report by MPs warns today. Senior officials running many of Whitehall's most "mission critical" IT schemes have not even held a meeting with the minister responsible, the report discloses. The high turnover of civil servants running such projects, and their lack of experience, has led to damaging "discontinuity" and increased the risk of cost over runs and delays.
Today's report from the Commons public accounts select committee follows a catalogue of costly problems with Government IT projects, including new computer systems for the NHS and tax credit systems. Many have gone billions of pounds over budget and are years behind schedule. The MPs said that in one in five "mission critical and high-risk" computer schemes, senior officials had not met the minister responsible.
"For these major, high-risk undertakings to succeed, ministers need to be briefed fully and candidly at least quarterly on risks, progress and cost escalations," the report says. It found that 70 per cent of senior officials were concerned about the lack of "programme and project management skills" within their departments.
There was also a disturbing turnover of staff involved in such schemes. More than half of the senior officials in charge of IT projects were carrying out the role for the first time. "Lack of relevant experience, combined with a regular turnover of post-holders, adds unnecessary risk to the management of IT-enabled change," the report says.
-------------
Hewitt admits defeat on doctors' job fiasco
Telegraph
17/05/2007
2 comments:
It is unclear to me, and I have seen no discussion of the topic, whether these appalling blunders (I could have blogged this in you couldn't make this up) are down to the government in the sense of the ruling Labour Party or the government in its wider sense - the Civil Service.
Any views?
------------
Tory criticism over files blunder
BBC News
Sunday, 15 June 2008
The Conservatives have accused the government of presiding over "a culture of carelessness" after a second set of sensitive papers was left on a train. The files - on terrorist funding, drugs trafficking and money laundering - were handed to the Independent on Sunday.
Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, shadow security spokesman, said those responsible for handling confidential information were "flouting" the rules. The foreign secretary told the BBC the incident was "completely inexcusable".
The documents were found on train bound for London Waterloo on 11 June, the same day that a batch of papers classified "UK Top Secret" and relating to intelligence assessments of Iraq and al-Qaeda, were handed to the BBC after being left by a senior official on a train.
Does anyone know where this absurd rule that in public life "you only secure the budget you want for next year by spending every last penny of this year’s allocation" came from, or what its justification is?
---------------
The Department for Wasting Our Money
By Daily Mail Comment
6th January 2011
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is heading for an underspend and wants to get money out of the door. These words, in a memo from a quangocrat asking his staff to dream up ways to waste taxpayers’ cash before the end of the financial year, underline the enormity of the task facing the Coalition as it attempts to bring Whitehall’s spending juggernaut to a halt.
...
The depressing reality is that Britain’s public sector still defines success by how much it spends, not what it gets in return. Despite the Coalition’s good intentions, the Whitehall culture of spend, spend, spend remains unrestrained. And central to that culture is the principle that you only secure the budget you want for next year by spending every last penny of this year’s allocation.
Post a Comment