Smaller Government

 

Smaller Government - here's how

It is difficult for a government to implement cost-cutting policies in the short term but having made the commitment there is a need to deliver.

One of the big costs is the employment of huge numbers of civil servants.  The plan here is quite long-term and involves the reform of Royal Chartered Institutions but in beginning the process, the government can claim to be making fundamental changes.

Royal Charters, granted by the sovereign on the advice of the Privy Council, have a history dating back to the 13th century. They work in the public interest (such as professional Institutions and charities) and can demonstrate pre-eminence, stability and permanence in their particular field (The Carpenters’ Company is a City of London Livery Company. It received its first royal charter in 1477).

There are many Chartered Institutions such as the RIBA, RICS, RTPI, The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, The Chartered College of Teaching and so forth. For the most part, membership is confined to people who are qualified to be members and mostly, there are ranks of members to cater for levels of competence. Membership is also limited to people who pay a subscription.

There are requirements to have achieved a level of competence to practice.

Thus, for example, members are educated and mandated to be good at what they do. It follows that such Institutions have a considerable role in ensuring best practices and have a role to play in monitoring failed performance of members.

The Institutes already exist but are in many ways acting with little by way of mandate.

Shifting the current cost and quality of managing high levels of performance from the government to the professions is a method for significantly reducing staffing costs and, at the same time, improving the quality of public sector management.

There is a need to mandate the Institutions to recruit and educate members and provide Continuous Professional Development for the lifetime of membership. The cost would be borne by the Institution and paid for by the membership.

In a reformed structure, no government agency will be allowed to use or employ people without a relevant qualification to practice. Government agencies will be financially liable for all remedial activity for poor performance by anyone other than a professional practitioner and responsible public sector managers will lose their qualification (and membership of for example the Chartered Management Institute) to practice. 

In the private sector organisations will have to insure against any unprofessional activities of employees. 

There is also a need to recognise different levels of learning and class of activity that members can undertake as, for example, a postgraduate internship, basic membership, professional membership and Fellows for example.

This has the advantage that different stages in the development of practice can be benchmarked for earnings set against the minimum wage. An example might be an intern receiving the minimum wage plus 5%,  membership plus 10% over the minimum wage, professional qualification at 15% and so forth. This would remove the need for wage negotiation and would have be agreed by members of the Institution.  It would set the range of payment based on the national minimum wage, recognising that, in the first instance, remuneration would have to be competitive or members would not be able to find employment.

With such examples, the public sector would not have to pay for education and training, wage negotiation and other non-productive activities. It would also mean that occasional/part-time professional requirements can be entered into with the secure knowledge that a professional would be employed as needed.

There are further standards to be applied. 

Institutes would be mandated to monitor the quality of performance of their members.

The Institutes would be mandated to insure against poor/unprofessional performance by members.

Poor performance of members should entail the removal of membership from their Chartered Institute. 

 Where Institutes are poor at monitoring and enforcing best practices, they should lose Charter status (and after six months of remedial activity, could apply to recover Charter status from the Privy Council).