While people expect the government to take the responsibility for the behaviour of the civil service, they must have the ability to manage the staff. you can't have it both ways.
West Coast Main Line Deal Ditched
- Thread starter philip2009
- Start date
While people expect the government to take the responsibility for the behaviour of the civil service, they must have the ability to manage the staff. you can't have it both ways.
the civil service are the poor sods that have to put into practice the half baked ideas of the government, I feel sorry for anyone who has work under Gove in the DofE that must be like one retarded policy after another they have to write.
The Government's remit is ministerial control of Whitehall departments where applicable.
If the fault occurs within CS procedure the risk has not been fully recognised and appreciated by the department, the responsible controlling minister or even the likes of the NAO come audit time.
There are problems at the very top of the SCS, but to give the impression of no accountability or control is completely off kilter. All the Chief Execs are accountable to parliament for their own departmental remit.
Perhaps the Government should have a better handle on things.
Quite.
They'd just be "thick" and "overpaid" in that instance.
The hypocrisy of this one persons personal vendetta against anything representing the state knows no logic or limits in double standards.
Define managerial?
If they wanted to have managerial input beyond T&C's and ambitions & aims for Boards to follow shouldn't they leave Office, and join the relevent departments ?
Afterall, what are we paying all these Excom members for across Whitehall if that's the case?
Government sets policy, Civil Service without bias or prejudice works to implement that policy or advise on future policies.
Pulling out a technicallity in the arrangement of the British Establishment does little to shield the reality of the day, that the Civil Service is there to perform the functions of the State which includes the Government elected by the electorate.
And if the service fails to do that, fails to follow the defined procedures or whatever, how is that the fault of the minister?
They do.
That wouldn't be directly, but you are jumping the gun by presuming this is the case.
Indirectly you could justifiably argue that they should have good control, especially with potential risks of this nature, through their Excom and other SCS members.
No, they don't. the minister has no say in staffing decisions or operational procedures, no do they have the ability to amend the criteria for the staff. these are basics that are crucial to having managerial input in an organisation.
Yes they do, be it FTE's budgets terms and conditions or reductions in things like losses through sickness.
Operational procedures, I think you'll find they do. Quite often they are set by the minister, at least in a top down overview. The details are where the Civil Service works to make that happen.
eg. HMRC is given a remit from the Treasury each year, Osborne controls Homer by way of policy direction and accountability and Homer controls the Excom board. The board control business streams, and heads of business streams ultimately control the coal face workers.
To pretend Whitehall departments are running around, fingers in ears going lalalala, doing what they want specifically is bonkers. The Cabinet Office and Head of the Civil Service largely rules the roost, and they impliment Government policy for the Civil Service and through it.
The guardian has shed some more light on this. 3 suspensions among staff for failing to complete tasks correctly.
The current government didn't create this process, and did not have any input into the decision, how exactly is it their fault that the procedures do not appear to have been followed correctly?
Links!
Government is responsible for its actions, irrespective of which term or Government the policy originated.
If it is that flawed, why did they let it continue as such?
Absolute ****-up, entirely contributable to the Dft and their system for assessing risk in contract tenders. The FirstGroup bid equated to a forecast for a 10% annual growth in revenue from the franchise with 6% passenger growth per annum, a forecast that doesn't stack with historical data from the route.
If FirstGroup weren't sustaining that forecast and getting the money in, leaving them unable to pay the money to the government the level of compensation was rather low (£265m) given the risk and value of the overall bid (£5.5bn in payments over 13yrs back loaded to the end of the term) meaning that if FirstGroup decided to walk away as several other franchises have done on other routes they have a rather cheap "buy-out" then leaving the route in chaos and the government to pickup the pieces.
The Transport Secretary has admitted their was a mistake with their assessment process over how this risks were taken account of, most likely to do with failing to flag up potentially unrealistic growth forecasts and thus FirstGroup probably scored highly on overall financial score and ability to meet the terms of the deal.
Now because the Dft has admitted a mistake, all four companies will be recompensed for the time and expense of putting a bid together. Estimated to be £40m but likely to be higher given Virgin are claiming the total cost of their bid was £15m.
Edit: To Biohazard above, the "government" aren't involved in every minute detail. Government departments and civil servants are supposed to be able to do their jobs correctly without "government" ruling every single decision and process.
If FirstGroup weren't sustaining that forecast and getting the money in, leaving them unable to pay the money to the government the level of compensation was rather low (£265m) given the risk and value of the overall bid (£5.5bn in payments over 13yrs back loaded to the end of the term) meaning that if FirstGroup decided to walk away as several other franchises have done on other routes they have a rather cheap "buy-out" then leaving the route in chaos and the government to pickup the pieces.
The Transport Secretary has admitted their was a mistake with their assessment process over how this risks were taken account of, most likely to do with failing to flag up potentially unrealistic growth forecasts and thus FirstGroup probably scored highly on overall financial score and ability to meet the terms of the deal.
Now because the Dft has admitted a mistake, all four companies will be recompensed for the time and expense of putting a bid together. Estimated to be £40m but likely to be higher given Virgin are claiming the total cost of their bid was £15m.
Edit: To Biohazard above, the "government" aren't involved in every minute detail. Government departments and civil servants are supposed to be able to do their jobs correctly without "government" ruling every single decision and process.
What about the auditors of those risks, do they have a clean record?
Of course, and if you have read what I have written this is kind of what I was saying.
It doesn't do away with ministerial responsibility however.
Would it not depend on the circumstances?
I highly doubt 3 civil servants can afford either the £40-50m for compensating the bidding companies, nor the £5.5bn FirstGroup were supposed to be paying for the franchise.
No wonder you didn't quote the article, I just made a cup of tea sat back down set about finding it myself and low behold just sprayed said tea realising exactly what you were quoting from;
Guardian said:
I don't know enough to say, and it'll take a while to hear the details but I would say that you have to remember that they have not actually been found to have acted outside guidance yet, so until that point it is still an allegation.
It's quite severe for a case like this, as far as I understand other glaring examples.
www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/03/transport-secretary-west-coast-mainline
Was the article, you are quoting an op ed piece
