Jack Worlidge

Worth saying that DHSC was one of the morale success stories last year - engagement went up by 5 ppt between 2023 and 2024

We've got the full picture of what happened across the main themes in the people survey here 👇

A notable increase of almost 3 percentage points in officials' satisfaction with their pay and benefits

And the fifth(!) consecutive year of falling satisfaction with 'leadership and managing change'

Extraordinary day of course for the royal family, the picture will live on for a long time. Also the sovereign is central to govt and important in many ways

But people who spend a lot of time centring the royals can get royal-pilled. This is not (a) the abdication; (b) a war; (c) the fall of a govt

A screenshot from a letter from the courts minister, Sarah Sackman MP, to the chair of the justice select committee, Andy Slaughter MP, which reads: The Institute for Government Report The Institute for Government’s Report on the court reforms referenced at the panel by Cassia Rowland is a useful contribution to the debate. However, we take issue with the report in two key respects. First, as the Department’s modelling, to be published with the Bill, will show, the IfG has understated the savings that can be achieved by the proposed reforms. This is understandable given they lack the complete data picture. Second, and perhaps more significantly, the IfG’s analysis assumes that court productivity could be restored to 2016 levels in a short space of time and that the backlog could be resolved without making significant reform. That is neither realistic nor does it account for the ways in which the system has changed over the last decade, with a backlog set to hit 100,000 open cases in a year from now. For example, Ms Rowland identified cancelled trials, resulting in wasted sitting days, as a major source of inefficiency. That reflects the workforce challenges and the lack of sufficient lawyers and judges in the system which I described above. That is a workforce issue which requires long term investment and will take years to resolve. The Government has begun to make that investment but it is not an issue which can be addressed in the short term.

Our analysis of the likely impact of the gov’s jury trial reforms has got some attention! This is the courts minister's response to the justice select committee asking about my figures. Here’s why I don’t think it’s a fair assessment: (report here www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...)

New piece from @hannahkeenan.bsky.social, @hcdunlop.bsky.social and me.

Our take on the task facing the new cabinet secretary 👇

...and the senior figure in No10 already exists - it's the chief of staff (political) and PPS (civil service). Which works pretty well as is.

An old debate, but this is (mostly) the right answer - current job is way too big for one person.

But 'chief advisor' bit is confused. The cab sec part of the job *is* being principal policy adviser to the PM...

Romeo was always the bold choice and is more likely than Wormald to drive the change the civil service needs.

But after recent briefing she's appointed under a bit of a cloud. Not knowing where that will go makes this feel risky - and Starmer *really* can't afford another appointment going south

That really was an expedited process

Starmer appoints Antonia Romeo as head of UK civil service Dame Antonia will be the first woman to hold the post and replaces Sir Chris Wormald as the UK's top civil servant.

Antonia Romeo appointed as cabinet secretary - @alexgathomas.bsky.social and I wrote last week about the challenges ahead for her and what lessons need to be taken from Wormald's tenure: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/next...

So the new cabinet secretary will indeed be Antonia Romeo

Here’s what we think she needs to prioritise

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/next...

Great piece from @hannahkeenan.bsky.social on the continually failing structures at the centre of government.

And why they’re (partly) to blame for governments cycling ever faster through cabinet secretaries and other key appointments

Casework Crisis: Increase In Constituency Caseload Takes Its Toll The inexorable growth in casework is stopping MPs from fulfilling their other roles. Alice Lilly sifts through the inbox looking for what might be ...

The workload facing MPs and their staff is growing, in ways that aren't visible to the public: casework and the inbox.

For @thehousemag.bsky.social, I delved into what the workload looks like, why it's growing, and what this means for how MPs can balance the different aspects of their role

Minute from the Prime Minister to the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office Minute from the Prime Minister to the Permanent Secretary at the Cabinet Office regarding Sir Mark Sedwill.

(As a side note - there was a similar question around Mark Sedwill's departure - the letter on that is here):

www.gov.uk/government/p...

So I don't think this should be seen as officials trying to block the payment, or 'refusing to sign off' as such.

Directions are a perfectly normal and healthy part of government - and should be seen as such!

2) A payment above the contractual minimum might not be considered value for money.

This is *not* Little saying she disagrees with the payout, or that it doesn't constitute value for money. Just that she isn't really in a position to judge whether it does.

And Starmer directed her to proceed.

In her request for a direction, Little noted that:

1) Wormald is her line manager - so her authorising the extra severance for him could constitute a conflict of interest. The precedent is that, as a result, in cases like this the PM decides on any extra payment

...

In the Wormald case, clearly he's contractually entitled to severance pay. But it seems that, because his departure was agreed very hastily, there was a proposal to give him more than the contractual minimum. Which seems fair!

Ministerial directions | Institute for Government Ministerial directions are formal instructions telling departments to proceed with a spending proposal, despite objection from permanent secretaries.

There are four grounds on which a perm sec can seek a direction - regularity, propriety, value for money, and feasibility.

More detail on these on @instituteforgovernment.org.uk website here -

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mi...

This should be a perfectly normal part of government. Ministers have every right to choose how to spend public money.

Perm secs have a responsibility to flag if they have concerns - and ministers have the right to instruct them to proceed anyway. That's all a direction is.

This makes clear that it was the minister's decision to go ahead with the spending proposal - so the perm sec can't be unfairly blamed if it goes wrong (given their statutory responsiblity for spending money well).

When this happens, the perm sec writes to the minister, essentially saying 'not sure about this, but if you're sure you want to do it, I'll go ahead'.

This is 'requesting a direction', and the minister's reply (saying 'yes go ahead') is the direction.

Perm secs have a responsibility to Parliament to make sure their departments spend public money appropriately.

Sometimes, a minister might want to spend money in a way that the department is unsure about.

Firstly - ministerial directions, while relatively rare, are *not* about officials trying to block something, or about ministers 'overruling' officials

Cabinet Secretary: ministerial direction Letters requesting and confirming the ministerial direction relating to the outgoing Cabinet Secretary.

Yesterday the Cabinet Office published the ministerial direction on Chris Wormald's exit payment 👇

This has been discussed a bit in the media, mainly in terms of 'civil service tried to block the huge payout'

A few points on this..

www.gov.uk/government/p...

Power with purpose: Final report of the Commission on the Centre of Government | Institute for Government Why the centre of government has failed successive prime ministers – and seven recommendations for radical reform.

...particularly of the centre of government.

Such an underpowered centre is ludicrous and no longer sustainable.

A proper Department of the PM and Cabinet, among other changes, is desperately needed👇

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...

Interesting piece from @benjudah.bsky.social - the latest former spad to reflect on the problems with the systems they grappled with in government.

As he says, @instituteforgovernment.org.uk and others have long been making the case for far-reaching reform...

Power with purpose: Final report of the Commission on the Centre of Government | Institute for Government Why the centre of government has failed successive prime ministers – and seven recommendations for radical reform.

Lib Dems want to split the treasury. Has been floated lots before - they're right that HMT is overly powerful, essentially setting the govt strategy by default. You could get round that by splitting it, or (as we @instituteforgovernment.org.uk think) by boosting No10 so it can drive strategy

As @timdurrant.bsky.social says, the Mandelson revelations are about leadership and judgement.

Process tweaks are all very well, but also aren't really the point in this case.

bsky.app/profile/timd...

In the last week or so, Starmer and other ministers have said the vetting process needs to change in light of this case.

It's not clear whether this small shift is the extent of the change...and even less clear that there any ideas about what further reforms to the process could actually look like.