Making government work better

Most people can see that Government too often moves slowly. Decisions take too long, projects drift, departments can work in silos and perfectly sensible proposals become bogged down in process. I don't think the answer is simply another major reorganisation of Government. Departments need clear responsibilities, Ministers need to be accountable for the services they oversee, and I am open minded about proposals such as making Government a single legal entity. But changing structures and reporting lines will achieve very little if the culture underneath them remains the same. The bigger change has to be in how Government chooses its priorities, makes decisions and gets things delivered.

Fewer priorities, properly delivered

An incoming Government should be prepared to identify perhaps five or six overriding priorities for the parliamentary term and organise itself around delivering them. That means accepting something politicians are often reluctant to say: Government cannot do everything at once. Choosing priorities inevitably means some other worthwhile projects will have to wait, receive less resource or stop altogether. I would rather see Government deliver a smaller number of important things properly than publish a long list of ambitions which all compete for the same money, staff and attention.

Once those priorities have been collectively agreed by the Council of Ministers, departmental boundaries should not be allowed to stand in their way. If delivering a priority requires Treasury, Infrastructure, Health, Education, Enterprise or any other part of Government to work together, they should do so as one Government. Resources and budgets should be capable of following the priority rather than every department protecting its own pot of money. Each major priority should have clear political ownership, senior management responsibility, realistic milestones and straightforward public reporting on whether it is on track.

A more sensible approach to risk

Government also needs to become more comfortable making decisions. Risk management should help Government understand risks and make better decisions. It should not become a mechanism for avoiding decisions altogether. There will never be a completely risk free option. Endless reports, consultations, approvals and assurances can reduce some risks, but they also create another risk: that nothing happens.

Politicians have a responsibility here too. We cannot complain that officials are excessively cautious while simultaneously creating a culture where every unsuccessful outcome results in somebody being blamed and every controversial decision is abandoned at the first sign of criticism. Where a proposal has been properly considered, the evidence supports it and the risks are understood, Government should be prepared to make the decision, explain it properly and see it through.

Sometimes the outcome will still not be what was hoped for. That does not automatically mean the decision was wrong. The important questions should be whether the original decision was reasonable, what has been learned and what now needs to change. Equally, persistence should never become stubbornness. New evidence or changed circumstances can justify changing course, but predictable opposition should be anticipated before a decision is made, not treated as a surprise afterwards. Good communication is therefore part of good government. If Ministers believe a difficult decision is right, they should be able to explain why, address the obvious concerns and make the case for it.

Consultation should inform decisions, not replace them

Public consultation has an important role, as do independent advice and specialist evidence. But commissioning another report or holding another consultation cannot become a substitute for eventually making a decision. Consultation should identify issues, challenge assumptions and improve proposals. Once that work has been done, Ministers have to take responsibility for deciding what happens next.

Start with the work, not a headcount target

I would not support an arbitrary target to cut the civil service by a particular number or percentage. The starting point should be deciding what Government actually needs to do. Where something is a genuine priority, it should be properly staffed and funded. Where work is unnecessary, duplicated or no longer a priority, it should be reduced or stopped and the resources moved elsewhere. That may mean fewer staff in some areas and greater capacity in others. The objective should be the right people doing useful work, not reaching an arbitrary staffing number.

Scrutiny without opposition for opposition's sake

The same principle applies to Tynwald. A backbench MHK should scrutinise Government robustly by testing the evidence, challenging weak proposals, questioning spending and holding Ministers to account when delivery falls short. But scrutiny and opposition are not the same thing.

Our political system gives independent MHKs considerable freedom. If Government has done the work, communicated the case and arrived at a decision I believe is right, I should be able to support it. Equally, where I think it has got something wrong, I should be free to challenge it. I do not believe good politics requires finding something to oppose simply because somebody else proposed it.

What success should look like

Government reform will not happen overnight. Changing the culture of a large organisation is closer to changing the direction of an oil tanker than flicking a switch. By the end of the next administration, however, I would expect to see clear evidence of improvement: important decisions being taken more quickly, major Government projects being delivered more reliably, departments working together around shared priorities, less duplicated and unnecessary administrative work, resources being moved towards the things Government has said matter most, and a more proportionate, risk based approach to decision making.

The Isle of Man does not lack plans, reports or people who understand the problems. The challenge is making decisions, putting resources behind them and following them through.