WIREDGOV

Frequent reshuffles "damage the quality of government" according to a new report from the Institute for Government.

In The Challenge of Being a Minister, the Institute finds that in the UK most ministers get just over two years to prove themselves in a job before being moved on. Many ministers and civil servants interviewed for the report said a high turnover rate is damaging to ministerial effectiveness. Report co-author, Peter Riddell says:

"The UK is notable for virtually annual reshuffles. Of course, there will always be changes when a minister is forced to resign because of a scandal or policy disagreements. Our concern is with reshuffles of choice which don't have to be done. For example, since 1949 we've had 35 business ministers whereas Germany has had only 15.

"Excessive turnover can reduce a minister's capacity to build up the expertise and experience required. David Cameron seems to have less enthusiasm for shuffling the deck having stated that he's not a believer in endlessly moving people between different jobs for its own sake. We'd encourage him to maintain that position."

More than 50 current and former ministers, civil servants and outsiders who work with government were interviewed. This has led to 14 recommendations for how ministerial performance could be improved. In addition to less frequent reshuffles, today's report suggests that a number of other factors will help ministers become more effective:

• The weight of responsibility and range and diversity of roles entailed in ministerial office is enormous so there needs to be a better mechanism for preparing individuals for these roles.
• Opposition parties need to take more seriously the task of preparing their shadow teams for office by familiarising them with how government and departments work. 
• The allocation of ministerial portfolios is often too casual. It should instead involve an assessment of the needs of individual posts, and of the competence, capacity and skill set of potential ministers. 
• Appraisal (or performance review) is practically non-existent but it should apply to ministers in the same way that it does to virtually every other profession including the civil service.
• The pool from which ministers are drawn needs to be widened and there is a good case for continuing the practice of appointing ministers from outside politics (through the House of Lords) with particular expertise and experience.

The Challenge of Being a Minister also asserts that there are actually very few career paths to becoming a minister and that the opportunities to learn the skills required are limited. In his forward, the Institute's Director, Andrew Adonis points to his own experience as a Special Advisor and concludes that:

"However maligned the office of SpAd may be, it is an excellent preparation - in many ways an apprenticeship - for ministerial office. Apprenticeships are a good thing; we need more of them in all fields of employment. Far from decrying the reign of ex-SpAds - David Cameron, George Osborne, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls et al. - we should welcome the fact that at least some ministers come to office with an apprenticeship worth the name, beyond service in the House of Commons."

However, with fewer than 80 Special Advisors in Whitehall, this particular route to ministerial office is limited to only a small cadre of people. Co-author of the report, Zoe Gruhn concludes that more must be done to prepare less-experienced individuals for the role and then to ensure that they continue to develop and grow once they take up their posts :

"Relying on your wits and flying by the seat of your pants, as many ministers seem to do, can impact adversely on departments and lead to careers ending in tears. New ministers are struck by the bewildering speed of events and the huge demands that office brings, for which they are so often unprepared. Personal development should be seen as normal custom and practice in helping to meet these challenges."

Limited routes to ministerial office and the lack of specialist expertise of ministers joining departments provides a strong argument for retaining (and even broadening) the current practice of recruiting ministers from outside the political arena. Says Peter Riddell, the appointment of these 'GOATs' (Government of all the Talents) works so long as the individuals in question have the capacity to acquire political and media skills.

Our international research shows that when non-parliamentarians are used in other countries, they nevertheless tend to be experienced politicians. Other political systems are better at finding ways to cultivate and engage a wider political class in high-level policy making. Experts are able to build substantial careers outside politics while still having political lives and building political skills and experience.

Ministers singled out in today's report as having been particularly effective include Peter Walker, David Blunkett, Nigel Lawson and Michael Heseltine (the latter being the subject of a case-study chapter: "Michael Heseltine - exemplar or exception ?"). Heseltine is sited as an exceptionally effective minister by civil servants because he had a clear vision about what he wanted to do. As Secretary of State, he closely involved both junior ministers in his department and civil servants in the departments he headed by delegating responsibility, leaving him free to press ahead with his main priorities.

The report says that there is no right or wrong way to achieve ministerial effectiveness although there are certain characteristics that most possess including the ability to have clear objectives, make good decisions and learn quickly from experience.

But a minister's life is often a lonely one. As The Challenge of Being a Minister concludes:

"You cannot mandate effective ministers, but it should be possible to change the norms to help them perform better. On their appointment, ministers are not instantly able to be on top of their jobs. It is a sign of strength, not weakness, for ministers to accept the need for formal advice, and to engage in development work before, and during, their periods in office."