Fit for Purpose? Part 2

Adapting the Westminster system?

Part one dealt with the historical origins of the Civil Service as a concept, the establishment of the UK civil service and the major changes that took place since its formation in the 1850s. To be clear, I use the term “civil service” as the collective term for the officials employed in government departments or agencies to conduct the government’s business. These officials and the departments in which they operate, typically survive the transitions between national elections. These employees are answerable to the civil service hierarchy, not a political party.

Elected officials are responsible for developing the policy framework within which the government will formulate plans and programmes for implementation. The cabinet is the body that approves the policies plans and programmes. ?Under the Westminster system, the cabinet consists of the prime minister, elected officials and constitutionally appointed ministers. This group is called the executive and manages day-to-day government apparatus through the civil service. Government is responsible to the legislature and ultimately to the electorate. Hence the term “cabinet government” within which ministers have individual responsibility for their respective ministries and “collective responsibility”.

Collective responsibility is the convention whereby cabinet ministers are accountable for the actions and decisions of a government. Cabinet deliberations should be free and frank, but confidential. Once a decision is made, all are collectively responsible despite any individual disagreement. Since the Cabinet is the apex governing institution, the mechanism for disseminating these decisions and any collateral information is critical. Timely and accurate communication is vital to any organisation if it is to achieve its objectives.

In England, this coordinating role is performed by the Cabinet Secretary who attends Cabinet meetings and may give advice if called upon, but may not participate in the deliberation process. The holder of this office is the most senior civil servant and acts as the advisor to the prime minister. As Secretary to the Cabinet, this person is based in the Cabinet Office and is responsible for the day-to-day operational and procedural matters in addition to recording Cabinet decisions and communicating the same to the relevant ministries.

The Cabinet Secretary position was established in 1916 in England and amended over time. The person holding this position is also head of the Home Civil Service and is responsible for all the civil servants of the various departments within the government (except the foreign office). This official chairs the Permanent Secretaries Working Group, the principal governing body of the civil service. This practice varies across the Commonwealth. In India, The Cabinet Secretary is the most senior civil servant, head of the Civil Services Board, the Cabinet Secretariat and the Indian Administrative Services and ranks eleventh in the order of precedence.

By comparison, in TT the permanent secretary to the prime minister is the titular head of the civil service and should serve as a link to the other permanent secretaries. Unlike the Cabinet Secretary in England, this person does not attend cabinet meetings. ?Whilst this office is called Head of the Public Service, there is no official establishment position by that name and no job description by that name. Whilst there have been moves to review this position, no changes have been made. The meetings of the permanent secretaries were regularly (once a month) and chaired by the Head of the Public Service but this practice has fallen into abeyance.

By definition managing a civil service bureaucracy and the services and systems which they operate are complex systems. Managing complex systems requires consistency, structure and procedures. Streamlining and integrating these procedures to make them more efficient is difficult. Alignment and coordination of these systems are critical to success in any organisation.? This is even more important in nation-building or managing a complex bureaucracy as there are many moving parts. Without this coordination, there will be dysfunctionality, delays, duplication, wastage and inconsistent delivery.

To meet organisational objectives, functional heads must meet to plan, harmonise, and monitor programmes. A decision by itself can achieve nothing if the systems and processes are not calibrated or synchronised. The comparison between the Cabinet Secretary's operation in England and the functioning of the Head of the Public Service in the TT context suggests many weaknesses in the TT operations.

If there is no central coordination, however weak, how can we realistically expect to approach any complex problem and expect a successful result?? How can there be an all-government approach to solving any problem, if key functional officers are not coordinating their approaches? And by extension, how are permanent secretaries to be evaluated if the persons doing the assessments are clueless about the requirements for their objectives? In this context, performance reviews become nothing more than personality assessments.

To suggest that the performance difficulties of the civil service are merely the result of human resources failings is to oversimplify the challenge. The issue is more complicated as there are structural and systemic challenges that are unaddressed. Nor has there been an adequate or robust review to determine the changes and adaptations that the TT Civil Service requires. It is na?ve to suggest that digitalisation or dismantling the service commissions will solve the problem overnight.?