Ruth Gledhill - Times Online - WBLG: Church critiques Government's 'moral compass'

June 07, 2008

Church critiques Government's 'moral compass'

As the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu finally got God to improve the weather so he could do his parachute jump, our front page story today contains some details of the ground-breaking new report commissioned by the Church of England on the Government's failure to take seriously its contribution to welfare in Britain. We've got more inside the paper, plus a commentary and a leader. The report, Moral, but no Compass, was commissioned by the Bishop of Hulme, Stephen Lowe, from the Von Hugel Institute, with the support of the bishops and archbishops. It is not published until Monday. Readers here might like to see some extracts which I have reproduced below. Meanwhile, our story was mentioned twice this morning on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, and others quick off the mark include John Richardson on Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream, the Cultural Anarchist, and Philip at Bharat Rakshak. (Not forgetting the DTs of course.)

1In his foreword, Bishop Lowe writes that he believes this is one of the most important documents produced for the Church since 'Faith in the City' in 1985. He says: 'It will require study at all levels of the Church and then decision. But it will also need careful political study by all political parties. The Church of England is still a major player in social and welfare provision in this country despite what its detractors might believe. It has earned the right as the largest voluntary organisation (and so much more) in the country to be listened to and worked with as a respected partner in the area of welfare provision as it is in education. For, as the report shows, without it this country would be infinitely poorer.'

From the introduction:

'We were asked to ascertain if the government was seeking to encourage the Church of England to engage afresh in the contract culture. We were also asked to consider how the Church might respond to any such approach in prophetic political word and practical social action.

'In pursuing answers to these questions we reflected upon aspects of the nature of modern policy making and the challenges it might present for the Church at national, regional and local level.... At the outset we encountered profound mismatches and misperceptions between how the Church understood its current significance, role and potential and the extent to which this was recognised in the policy community. We will outline some of these misperceptions later in the report. Perhaps even more significantly, we uncovered huge gaps in government evidence about faith communities in general and the churches in particular. We encountered on the part of Government a significant lack of understanding of, or interest in, the Church of Englandâs current or potential contribution in the public sphere. Indeed we were told that Government had consciously decided to focus its evidence gathering almost exclusively on minority religions. We were unsurprised to hear that some of these consequently felt victimised. We also found the Charity Commission's data and systems of classification to be very weak, while again a conscious focus on minority communities was being achieved to the relative exclusion of the Christian church and hundreds of other charities. Three separate government departments admitted to possessing no evidence based on the
Christian churches, despite one having proactively commissioned new research to underpin its faith-based agenda. The Office of the Third Sector could not conceive why such an evidence base might be necessary, despite ministerial claims of taking faith communities seriously. Given the extent to which modern departments of state aspire to root their strategies in sound research and hard data it is unsurprising that these omissions are now beginning to contribute to weaknesses in public policy design and coordination.'

From the main body of the report:

'Articulating the relationship between 'what matters' and 'what works' for Christians has never been easy. All of our faith-based respondents reported 'immense religious illiteracy' on the part of local government officials, politicians and throughout the policy-making community as a whole. As we have said, the view most consistently expressed was that all faiths were 'private ideas' or 'private practices' with relevance
only on one day of the week. This contrasted with a 'gut feeling' expressed in other quarters that the Church 'is doing a lot around the place'. Prevalent also was a misinformed belief that across the board 'Christian churches are declining and relying on ageing white women for their numbers'. Dioceses such as
London and Southwark, which have enjoyed an increase in Church attendance and an internationalisation of congregations, would seem to refute such a claim. It is also a statistically contested area of forecasting. Notwithstanding these comments, we were astonished to be told by civil servants that there is no evidence base in government circles on Christian institutions. Indeed, in some quarters the very idea that such an evidence base may be relevant to a modern social or policy agenda seemed fantastic. Yet we are aware of specially commissioned government studies on minority faiths, extensive work on Muslim 'radicalisation' and research into specific (black) evangelical churches. Not surprisingly, as we suggested above, we heard that some minority faiths felt 'under surveillance'. The government itself has commented that the data on the non-profit sector from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not serve the sector well, and NCVO has called data on religion 'limited' at best. ONS data on the churches is weak because it is presented in terms of 'average numbers of believers' rather than acknowledging regional nuance. Based on our interviews with politicians, government officials and people in the faith communities themselves, we can only conclude that the absence of a 'churches' evidence base is grounded in a judgement that churches are not worthy to
have even a modest role in government schemes. Such a judgement contrasts strongly with public declarations by Ministers that all of civil society is welcome to the public service reform table and that the government's agenda is for all faiths rather than for a few. Yet if what we were told is correct, the churches simply do not register on the policy-making radar in serious terms, despite the best efforts of some excellent Ministers and MPs. Crucially for government, the absence of an evidence base on the Christian churches means that it has been planning blindly in the third sector. The Charity Commission's data on the size, scope and nature of faith-based/religious charities in general is profoundly flawed, and the government has focused its evidence gathering so intensely on minority faiths that it has failed to develop a coherent evidence base for the largest religious body - and one of the largest third sector players - in the UK, the Christian church. It would be surprising if this failure were not causing management problems for the state at the level of national and local government. For those Christian charity executives that we interviewed, theology is the very organisational theory according to which they discern and arrange their strategies and performance criteria. Even at the level of organisational analysis, discounting this theological underpinning
out of hand - as some in politics, government and voluntary sector umbrella bodies clearly do - is equivalent to saying that the BBC's adoption of 'public value' criteria for the campaign to renew its licence, or a private sector organisation's harnessing of the 'excellence' model, is not relevant for understanding its practical strategies. Such an understanding of 'theology' may be key to teasing out how 'fit for purpose' the
organisation is when it comes to the allocation of state resources.'

The report is also extremely critical of the Charity Commission, in particular the commission's new guidance on use of scriptures in advocacy work. It lists a number of prominent church charities that fall foul of its new formula on how a religious charity must be defined in its constitution.

'In its report published in December 2007 the Charity Commission said that it had become interested in faith-based charities (i.e. advancing religion) for a variety of reasons, but focused its attention on independent evangelical Christian congregations and mosques. This led it to initiate a new three-year engagement that involved most of the UK’s minority faiths because the Commission believed that, ‘although these faiths are classed as minority in the UK, we were sensitive to the fact that they include the main worldwide religions’. In global terms the accuracy of this claim is unclear, but in either event it positively excluded the two largest religious groupings in the country, the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church!

'The Commission claimed that as a result of the ‘new research’ conducted during its three-year consultation, it had unearthed ‘in excess of 25,500 faith-based charities’. However, in a report published around the same time, the Carnegie Commission into the Future of Civil Society claimed to have been told by the Charity Commission that there were 23,383 charities registered by religion with a total income of £4.6 billion. The Carnegie Commission observes that this must be an understatement because the figure did not include Church of England parishes whose number is in excess of 16,000!

'Even the NCVO’s Civil Society Almanac - described by Minister for the Third Sector, Ed Miliband, as ‘the sector’s most important reference book’ – is deficient. Although the Almanac is an important resource for evidence-based debates on policy in particular and for NCVO’s advocacy of the sector in general, its ability to record the size of the ‘faith sector’ is limited.

'When we met with senior figures within NCVO, they reiterated the view that ‘faith’ needed to be integrated more into the mainstream sector, the trouble being that ‘faith sees itself as a separate realm’. We were thus unsurprised that several Christian voluntary bodies told us that they only felt genuinely welcome at the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO).

'Based on its impressions of faith, the March 2008 NCVO Almanac stated that there were 10,213 faith-based charities on the register in 2005/6 with an income of £3.19 billion and assets of £11.9 billion. The Almanac judged that the requirement in the new Charity Act for ‘excepted charities’ with a gross income exceeding £100,000 to report to the Commission would mean that 2,734 more faith-based charities would be added to the Charity Commission’s statistics from 1 October 2008.

'This confusion surrounding the number of faith-based charities, particularly Anglican ones, has a long history. In the initial preparation for what became the Charity Act of 2006, the Government’s own strategy unit pointed out that the Charity Commission’s classification criteria led it significantly to understate the number of black and minority ethnic (BME) community voluntary organisations. Quoting a complementary study, they reported that as many as 18 per cent of BME organisations were faith-based. It could be inferred that the number of faith groups is being misstated. More worryingly, Elizabeth Palmer has argued that this underestimation due to failures of classification and understanding runs much deeper. Researching on the Charity Commission’s website, Palmer noted that charities are classified by their type of beneficiary, their function or their field of operation. Consequently, she spent time researching the database by name, registration number, areas in which charities worked by key words. Based on the names of charities and their objects she judged that five out of eight organisations in her research cohort would not have been classified as ‘religious’ or ‘faith-based’ despite the fact that they were fully and self consciously Christian in origin, ethos and governance. Fearing that this may be a misperception she contacted the Charity Commission helpdesk, and her discovery was verified. Palmer comments that if her findings are representative in the social welfare sector then the faith-based charity population on the Charity Commission’s register alone ‘would be understated by as much as 62.5%’. Using the same method we searched the Charity Commission’s website. We discovered that the Bishop of Guildford’s Foundation, Church Action on Poverty, Housing Justice, The Passage Centre for the Homeless, Methodist Homes for the Aged, several Catholic children’s societies, and the St Vincent de Paul Society would not count
as religious charities, despite their expressed ethos, constituencies and titles! Even Islamic Relief, described by the DCLG as ‘the largest Muslim charity in the UK’, would not count as a faith-based organisation for the Charity Commission because it did not expressly state ‘advancing religion’ in its objects. On telephoning the Charity Commission ourselves in February 2008, we had this perception confirmed. In such circumstances it is unsurprising how enduring Cabinet office and central government
misperceptions and prejudices are.'

The final remarks include:

'In the course of our research for this report, we have encountered a Church of England that, proportionate to its size, makes extensive contributions to the civic health of the nation. Bishops engage in countless activities ranging from involvement in fundraising appeals, to regeneration, to sitting on governing bodies of local schools or colleges, to community leadership. Cathedrals serve a dual role of being centres of prayer and of great potential for social action, education and regeneration – all within a rich Christian narrative of ‘hospitality’ and ‘openness’. Dioceses contain significant resources, both financial and human, that could enable them to become meaningful players in welfare provision and the strengthening of community foundations. Congregations, with their unique ability to know and understand the situation locally, have shown a true spirit of innovation in their quest to meet the needs presented (i.e. opening a post office in church) and to raise funds for wider Christian social innovations in housing, addiction, family support and anti-poverty campaigning. In this sense, it is no wonder that Anglican organisations and institutions have been pioneers and leaders in development work, children’s needs, and every area of civil society. All in all, the Church of England has proven itself to have the conviction, institutional capacity, innovative spirit and skills to extend its current reach even more widely, should it so wish. This will be a moment for leadership in the Church. Yet, despite this immense and longstanding involvement by the Anglican Church, the government, with notable exceptions, has consistently failed to pay more than enthusiastic lip service to its role in society generally and in the third sector in particular. In turn this means that Government is being experienced at the local and national level in negative ways. Its perceived discrimination against the Christian Church and other religious bodies, coupled with the relative downgrading of regional and other
local actors, suggests a policy-making environment that has essentially excluded, or pushed to the margins, social voices (not just religious ones) that are vital to civic debate. Those whom we met felt that the social welfare contracting regime as presently constituted must be reshaped in light of these concerns.
It is clear that the Conservatives have, at the least, a rhetorical desire to address many of these issues. In the case of the Labour Government, that intention is not so clear despite, as we have said, the outstanding efforts of a few Ministers and MPs. The prevailing culture of the government seems to flow against these principled pioneers.'

They conclude that a 'fresh dialogue' is needed.

'Only if such a fresh conversation emerges will the government manage to steer its faith-based policies back on course, and the Church step forward once again with a new confidence for the times. Only then will the government truly recover a convincing moral direction and its badly needed compass.'

Technorati Tags: Church of England, Gordon Brown, Government, Von Hugel Institute

Posted by Ruth Gledhill on June 07, 2008 at 07:25 AM in Church of England, Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451da9669e200e552f564b68833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Church critiques Government's 'moral compass':

» Moral, But No Compass from Thinking Anglicans
This is the title of a Church of England report (180 pages) to be published on Monday. The Times already has seen it, and has published several articles about it: Church attacks Labour for betraying Christians The policies of Tony... [Read More]

» Moral, But No Compass - continued from Thinking Anglicans
See below for earlier reports. Here is the publishers website description: Moral, But No Compass Government, Church and the Future of Welfare In the heyday of Thatcherism the Church of England and the Conservative government of the day locked ho... [Read More]

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It is dangerous for the CofE to accuse the Government of having no moral compass at a time when it (the CofE) has been forced to conduct an internal enquiry to see how many cases of priestly child abuse it may have deliberately covered up, following a couple of well publicised and embarassing criminal cases last year. I think we all hope that the answer they get is zero, but it might have been better if it had been an independent enquiry.

An approach that says "don't do as we do, just do as we say" does not reflect the modern approach to life and is unlikely to win it many friends and sympathisers - likewise a report from the chief fox confirming no foxes are implicated in the recent series of chicken coop raids.

The church could also help its cause if its hierarchy could all sing from the same hymn sheet - on anything. The Church comes across as hopelessly divided on the major isues of the day, from abortion to embryology bills, from the role of women to what to do about gays, and indeed on what do do about integrating other ethnic/religious minorities in multi-faith Britain. Nazir-Ali says convert them to Christianity, Williams suggests there may be a need to give them a "supplementary jurisdiction" if they can't sign up to the country's laws.

An organisation that purports to stand for equality and social justice, while simultaneously demanding special privilege, the right to discriminate against others and the right to exemptions from equality laws, has clearly got some work to do on itself before it lectures everyone else.

Matthew 7: 3-5 springs to mind

Posted by: Alistair | 10 Jun 2008 14:45:02

What a bizarre assertion from Robert Ian Williams!

I can only assume he is some kind of Lefebvrist.

Birth rates are almost identical among Roman Catholics to the rest of the population.

Divorce is administered by the secular courts. Lots of Roman Catholics do it, and then go through a bizarre process conducted by their church which purports to declare that they were never married in the first place, so that they can go through the charade of a wedding in church to their new partner.

Posted by: David Cohen | 10 Jun 2008 12:41:49

A moral compass from a church that promotes contraception and divorce and re-marriage! Kettle calling the teapot black, I think!

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams | 9 Jun 2008 18:38:10

Archbishop William Temple said "The church is the only society on earth that exists primarily for the benefit of its non members.

Now that the C of E Website has published some details of the report, it can be seen just what a contribution is made by Christians for THE COMMON GOOD, rather than the self-interest which grips some sectors of the community.

It is good to note that three-quarters of the population recognised this in the last census, and want to be part of it, even if they don't actually go to church.

I wonder if some bright spark will attempt to calculate the cost of replacing the Christian voluntary sector with paid employees.

The C of E link is here.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/prvonhugel.html

Posted by: Jill | 9 Jun 2008 17:52:28

Litlle Tarquin of the C of E seem miffed that Abdul, Levi, Dinesh et al are getting more attention than him in the playground, when they throw their collective teddies out of the cot. So Tarquin proposes…having even more of the attention for himself. Why not make it the other way round - how about telling all these petulant religious brats to bog off and stop interfering with peoples lives?

Does the C of E not understand its current position? The Church and State are not separated constitutionally. The C of E has unelected reps in the Lords. When the C of E lambasts the Government for not "registering it on the policy radar", it fails to mention how, in its view, this country is "majority Christian" (as Dr Marsh never tires of reminding us) and by dint of sheer numbers, could affect public policy without recourse to special representation. It doesn't take a social scientist to work out that Christians form part of all social and economic strata's.

This report is, for the most part, cobblers. An exercise in sheer, naked self-interest. The Church doesn’t like the fact that it has reduced political clout. So its throwing a tantrum. Yet it maintains considerable financial clout and is prepared to engage in distinctly uncharitable and unChristian legal manouvres to protect that clout. All because the law(s) of this country protect C of E interests particularly strongly. Have they mentioned that? Not that I can see. Quelle surprise.

A "Minister for Faith"? How does that work? Does every Christian fruit loop with a personal axe to grind get to influence public policy then? Do Scientologists get a rep? Are the Pagans involved? Ridiculous.

Why doesn't the Church just keep doing what it does best and has done for years - doing spiritual good work in the private sphere, out of sight at the grass roots? Isn't this the most humble, "Christ-like" vocation for the Church? Would JC be the kind of guy to vye for a role advising the Roman Praetor?! Not if you believe some of the regular "expert" contributors on this site. So what gives with the C of E then? Does it really think that a top down initiative from Government level will actually work?

No. I see the dead hand of religious beauracrats at work here. Jobs for the boys. Get on the Government gravy train at all costs. And what will it do if it actually gets there? Use the position to do what? Try and reverse equality legislation in line with its medievalist dogma? That’s going to go down well with the public, isn't it?!

"'Only if such a fresh conversation emerges will the government manage to steer its faith-based policies back on course..."

Why, of course. But naturally, this will be a course plotted and recommended by the unelected, undemocratic, self-interested burghers of the C of E...

Posted by: J Pearce | 9 Jun 2008 15:25:34

Alan Marsh's post equally is filled with asertions based on personal opinion. There is a debate to be had for example over whether or not churches, although part of the social fabric, are 'integral' to it questioning whether, as institutions, they relay meaning or purpose, or connect with the majority in that society.

Moreover the wording of the last census, which returned a substantial number of 'C of E' ticked boxes, was ambiguous in that no mechanism existed to differentiate between those asserting that they were specifically Christian, with a meaningful faith and those who assumed that since they did not belong to other denominations, were baptised as infants or were simply English they must be 'C of E'. In other words the question showed no method and could not have returned a meaningful statistic.

So, by directly connecting religion with politics, is Mr Marsh saying, that new Labour is institutionally atheist or that parliamentary votes, in pursuance of a 'secular creed', have been cast by people who believe that awarding 'rights' or empowering people does not contribute to the common good? Through quoting the Wildean definition of a cynic Mr Marsh also implies that new Labour has simply followed on from a Conservative government, which eroded cultural concerns (of course based on Anglican religious values) in favour of economic considerations.

Since British politics have been dominated by these two parties for a hundred years which, he seems to be arguing, have remained unaffected by the religious element within them, and since also there seems not to be an electable colour he likes, is he not making a substantial case for removing religion from politics altogether?

It is equally possible to read modern culture without emphasising negativity and describing it as a broken 'wasteland', which does rather suggest a sour grapes approach from those who consider that religious concerns are not being taken seriously enough. In this, Mr Marsh joins the long list of carping Christian gloomies such as Messrs Nazir-Ali and Sentamu, both of whom can only ever place social problem-solving within the stifling dimensions of their own faith.

Andrew McGee draws attention to the Christian cat being found thoroughly out of the bag. The truth is that society no longer relates to narrow notions of faith having any meaningful effect on solving anything. The remains of the days of constructed self-importance and privilege are seen in the attempts by clerics and their nervous adherents to cling on to some sort of relevance. This is achieved through constant moral criticism and by a refusal to accept that society is able to solve its own issues without religious referral. Having said that, for some people religion undoubtedly has a strong personal meaning but, much like any other singular pesonal belief it cannot inform or fit a society which overall operates a different system.

Posted by: George Parr | 9 Jun 2008 11:01:13

Integral parts of the social fabric, yes - along with countless other interest groups!

And I think the cross on the census form indicates nothing more than an assumption that they are British, thus Christian, in the vast majority of cases. Church attendance is a far batter way of adjudging the level of religiosity of a country. Go to the States, and the much higher level of religious observance is so very apparent.

This is, essentially a secular country. The churches should be treated fairly - but they cannot and should not be given preference. Neither should their moral outlook have any direct bearing on anyone but those who choose to adopt and actively practice that religion - the law has to tread a quite tricky path amongst many different beliefs. Legally enforced moral neutrality is, indeed, the aim.

Posted by: Mike Homfray | 9 Jun 2008 10:05:36

Ruth, readers of your blog who note the link to my Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream site my wish to read my latest posting on my personal blog here: There is a Moral Compass, there's just no North.

Posted by: John Richardson | 8 Jun 2008 15:37:02

Well done for getting on the front page!

This is my blog on your article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4083506.ece

Personally, I think that the local clergy are wonderful and deserve all the praise and support they can get.

Posted by: Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA | 7 Jun 2008 23:50:25

Andrew Magee's post makes a wholly unfounded assertion of personal opinion in his last sentence.

The whole point of the report is that the Churches are integral parts of the social fabric of the UK, which remains a Christian country in the opinion of the great majority of those who are polled and especially in the last Census.

The attempt by New Labour over the past 11 years to substitute some kind of secular creed for the Judaeo-Christian framework of British society has failed very badly, partly because it speaks only of (unsubstantiated) "rights" with no correlating motivation to contribute to the common good; and partly because it has neglected the massive contribution which is made charitably to Britain by church members.

It was said of John Major's government that it "knew the price of everything and the value of nothing". New Labour has taken matters a stage further, by seeking to replace values with legally enforced moral neutrality, eroding all the boundaries which formerly guarded a way of life which was founded on charity rather than government regulation.

It was not perfect, but it was enviably better than the wasteland which is now developing in the UK, monitored by CCTV cameras and rewarded by ASBOs.

Posted by: Dr Alan Marsh | 7 Jun 2008 16:13:04

The fundamental error here is to assume that the 'religious' dimension is essential or even important in making contributions to society in the broadest sense. It is one think to want to help the poor, disadvantaged, ill-educated, unemployed etc. That is a worthy objective and should be encouraged. It is something else entirely to seek touse that help as an excuse for advancing a faith-based agenda, or to argue that faithis necessary for the giving of such assistance. The continued - and inevitable - narrowness and nastiness and irrationality of the churches and those associated with them leaves many people now deeply sceptical of any offer by the churches to help. Let people of goodwill help through a socially-based but secular agenda. This is yet another 'report' on behalf of the christian lobby which will achieve nothing. The problems and deficiencies of religion are now too well-known to allow the churches to retain significant influence.

Posted by: Andrew McGee | 7 Jun 2008 14:30:13

Dear Ms Gledhill

Your headline does suggest a change of direction in Government is required.

Your comment of " What the report shows is a Church heavily engaged in social welfare through its dioceses, cathedrals, bishops, priests and laity, and receiving little or no recognition from the Government." is so apt.

I think we all need to rethink our strategy in helping the poor both young and old.
We all have a desire for personalised public services, improved education and alleviation of increasing poverty in our own lives and so I believe strategy in this area for all the three political parties will become more paramount now in Parliament.

If there were a general election today and the Conservatives won, they would be faced with rising oil prices, rising gas and electricity prices, rising food prices and a global credit squeeze - all of which are having a negative impact on family budgets and affecting the poor to a greater degree. This will squeeze company profits as people will have less money to buy goods leading to further loss of jobs and less tax revenues and more pressure on the welfare budget.

This suggests that effective reform of the tax and welfare system has now got to have a very high national priority.

I suggest you read the book Systems Thinking in the Public Sector: the failure of the reform regime... and a manifesto for a better way by John Seddon, a review of which I have written below.

In the case of tax and welfare benefits for the poor, I suggest there are only two value demands: 'Can I make a claim to increase the money I have to live on?' And 'My circumstances have changed'.

Seriously which ever political party tries to tackle tax and welfare reform needs to think through the systems very carefully otherwise we are likely to be in a bigger mess than we are now. My gut reaction says we can probably leave the tax system alone, though tax rates could still be varied, but we do need to totally revamp the welfare system which we might be able to do in less than two years.

When we have thought through what we need to do then perhaps we need to change the boundaries of departments and local government to mirror what is required. I think if we mesh policy, design and operations much more closely we are likely to be able to work out the shape of departments and local government required for which the Prime Minister will need to appoint ministers. I have a feeling that we will probably end up with fewer but larger departments and a greater role for local Government in awarding welfare benefits that will work better together and perhaps require less civil servants and local authority officials to run.

The Government would perhaps need to form a coalition with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats to achieve this swiftly by implementation of my "Unified Tax System". With 400 local authorities I cannot see one political party being able to do this on their own and Labour controls very few local authorities now. This would perhaps cut out billions of pounds of waste to help alleviate poverty for the poor.

I suggest that if Gordon Brown were to work David Cameron now to achieve this, he would be showing great leadership and might even still be Prime Minister in two years. Is it better to start now to alleviate poverty or risk waiting a further two years?

How can the Church of England help be more effective? By delivering much more at a local level? How many sermons have you ever heard preached from the pulpit on Sundays regarding effective social action? What would have Jesus done? Perhaps he would have knocked over the money tables at the Treasury as they do not appear any longer to acknowledge Dieu et mon droit.

What do you think of this strategy?

Kind regards

Geoff Bantock

"If investment in the UK public sector has not been matched by improvement, it is because we have invested in the wrong things. We invest in the wrong things believing them to be the right things. We think inspection drives improvement we believe in the notion of economies of scale, we think choice and quasi-markets are leavers for improvement, we believe people can be motivated with incentives, we think leaders need visions, managers need targets, and information technology is a driver of change. These are all wrong-headed ideas. But they have been the foundation of public-sector 'reform'."

This bold opening is the nub of Systems Thinking in the Public Sector - the failure of the reform regime.... and a manifesto for a better way -, which will surely challenge all politicians and policy makers who set targets in the public service. John Seddon asserts that "Public services have requirements placed on them by a plethora of bodies, the biggest single weakness of which, common to them all, is that they are based on opinion rather than knowledge."

His 'better way' is based on the principles and practises of systems thinking. Instead of creating functional, command-and-control hierarchies, the systems approach is to design against demand to 'pull value' from the system. In this way, costs fall as service improves.

Studying housing benefits which are claimed by more than 4 million people, a systems thinker asks 'What is the purpose of this service from the customer's point of view?’ Many local authorities have come to the same conclusion - To pay the right benefits to the right people as quickly as possible. One local authority found that it took between 52 and 152 days for a claimant to get their benefits.

There are two types of demand that interest a systems thinker: value demand and failure demand.

Value demand is 'demand we want', demand that the service is there to provide for. In the case of housing benefits, there are only two value demands: 'Can I make a claim?' And 'My circumstances have changed'.

Failure demand is demand caused by a failure to do something or do something right for the customer.

He gives the type and frequency of demand: -

· Face to face 34% value, 66% failure
· Telephone 22% value, 78% failure
· Post 44% value, 56% failure

Typically, after system redesign all benefits are processed in an average of five to six days. This is so far beyond current targets that it would never have been set as one.

John Seddon makes a compelling case for the public service regime to get rid of its specifications, regulations, targets and the like which are actually making performance worse.

a triarchy press publication

Systems Thinking in the Public Sector: the failure of the reform regime... and a manifesto for a better way by John Seddon
Publication Date: 11 April 2008
No. of Pages: 224
Book type: Paperback
ISBN: 978-0-9550081-8-4
List Price: £20.00
Special Offer Price: £18.00

Cover of 'Systems Thinking in the Public Sector' by John Seddon

a triarchy press publication
Systems Thinking in the Public Sector: the failure of the reform regime... and a manifesto for a better way

From: geoff bantock
To:
CC: garry taylor
Subject: Mark 2 version Perhaps the way forward to Protect the Poorest From the Effects of Economic Downturn
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:31:19 +0000

Dear Dr Rowan Williams

Protect the Poorest From the Effects of Economic Downturn

I congratulate you for calling, yesterday, on the government to do more to protect the poorest and most vulnerable from the likely consequences of an economic downturn.

As a collector of taxes for 35 years, I am extremely embarrassed and angry that HMRC has designed and delivered the annular system of tax credits has resulted in citizens of our country owing about £4.2 billion of debt. Some 2 million of our poorest families now owe on average about £2,000 each. Half of these families will probably have an income of less than £20,000 p.a. As a collector or taxes, I have great difficulty in collecting any money off someone who has
negligible assets and low income.

A system that was designed to alleviate poverty has resulted in poverty and debt to a million or so poor families.

What can be done?

I share below my visionary idea of my Unified Tax System which will streamline the current 61 different benefits handled by HMRC, DWP and local authorities which our poor have to claim.This massive tax credits debt inspired my idea. Every household, particularly important for poor households, would be able to budget knowing what their income, expenditure and assets are because all necessary tax, national insurance, council tax, benefits, maintenance, tax credits, allowances, and student loan payments would be handled by a single virtual national/local government office.

Banks, like Northern Rock would not make doubtful loans as they could ascertain
income, expenditure and assets more accurately.

Charities like the Citizen's Advice Bureau could ensure so much more easily that clients had claimed all their benefits and would find it much more quickly to work out solutions to debt problems.

Collectors of taxes could operate a much fairer time to pay policy and perhaps have a remissions policy on hardship that would bare scrutiny with the Public Accounts Committee or National Audit Office.

The courts when making repayment orders would have more accurate information on ability to repay.I believe that reckless lending, tax credits, immigration controls, together with tax, benefits and their associated IT systems reform are inextricably linked and cannot be solved in isolation.

My idea is only a concept but I suggest it is the best on offer at the moment because it tries to find a solution on welfare reform that is both holistic and consensual.Gordon Brown is trying to do something about improving our society.

Listen to these clips from staff at Civil Service Live on Brown's
speech to us and make up your own mind.http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/live/video/ReactionsToPM.aspI
asked Gordon Brown a question, which unfortunately does not appear in the film clip. My question to him was : -'When you come back to the conference in one or two year's time what would like to see that we have achieved?'

His response was in essence -' Expansion of education as price of failure is falling behind countries like India and China - Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets being interdepartmental which gives a great challenge for collaboration - people to be safer - on social care more people living longer from a range of community services'.

I was very impressed with that answer and I shall try my best to help him achieve those aims.

I spent all 3 days of Civil Service Live going around about 15 different seminars. Just look at these further 3 clips which are on the Internet about Civil Service Live to inspire and showcase the best in innovation - the fourth is a Cabinet Office press notice.

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/live/video/GeoffBantock.asp

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/live/video/JoDonaldson.asp

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/live/lionslair.asp

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2008/080401_cslive.aspx

I need people like you to talk up those of us who are trying to innovate - and a bit of publicity round A 'Unified Tax System' that can work out straightaway household's net disposable monthly income' might get things happening quicker and perhaps make it more likely for you to say in a year or two the government has done a lot more to protect the poorest and most vulnerable from the likely consequences of an economic downturn.

There were a lot of very interesting seminars on CS Live which you might find interesting to be aware of , I just feel that a lot of people are now trying to innovate throughout the Civil Service

* Learning: The Learning and Development Sessions
* Innovation: Some of the inspiring innovation sessions
* Versatility: Details on the wide range of government and private sector partners who took part in Civil Service Live
* Enterprise: Peter Jones and Sir Gus O’Donnell’s session on Entrepreneurship in the civil service

But getting back to your sermon I went to an enlightening seminar: -

Thought Leadership: Moving Hearts and Minds

Speaker: Robin Ryde, chief executive, National School of Government
Summary: Based on his new leadership book ‘Thought Leadership’, Robin Ryde, chief
xecutive of the National School of Government, talks about how leaders can engage with their staff to release more energy, creativity and better solutions to the challenges they face.

What was most interesting to me was that Robin explained the difference between 'Deficit Thinking' which perhaps both Gordon Brown and most of the Civil Service use and 'Strength-Based Thinking' which I am now trying to use. One concept he raised was the challenge between the competing needs of the two different ways of filling posts - going through the full and correct personal development process, which is time consuming,of getting someone into a job versus the process of knowing exactly the right person for the job and moving them straight in to get the job done quickly. Perhaps the first is popular for those in policy and the second for those of us who are in operations.

Perhaps the best way to solve this is to mesh policy, design and operations much more closely which should ensure delivery works better - perhaps the ministers's jobs in Cabinet might have to be meshed to mirror what might be required to be meshed between departments so innovation is enhanced, which is essential to reverse the Economic Downturn..

Gordon Brown has got the vision and he is working on the delivery, let's hope he picks up himself off the floor, and helps me deliver the Unified Tax System ASAP which seems to be even more needed, as a result of the events this week, to help the poorest..

Last week I asked an experienced IT project manager whether he could design a new unified tax and welfare IT system for the whole country inside three months provided he had the backing of all three political parties, the private and third sectors. He said he could do so if the normal delaying gateways were not there.

What do you think?

I attach my speech and prepared answers which shows my current thinking on how my original vision of 13 January 2007 might be delivered (these are not in the public domain so please be selective to who you pass them to)

Kind regards

Geoff Bantock
Copied to Rev Garry Taylor, vicar of St Marks church in Highcliffe near Christchurch, where he is today leading The Diocese of Winchester Day of Prayer

Final version plus prepared questions.

Unified Tax System at Lions Lair 6 March 2008

Geoff Bantock draft speech 04/03/08

Many members of society rely on benefits from National and Local government to provide them with an income to live on.

Our customers, particularly customers who are reliant on benefits, need to to know how much money they have to live on each month.

Cash in the bank at the end of the month is what really matters to this group.

The tax and benefit system currently provides 61 different benefits to alleviate poverty, provided by 3 institutions – HMRC, DWP and local authorities.

Complexity in the system makes it hard for poorer members of society to have certainty about their income.

Our customers would benefit from four major changes. These are : -

· more personalisation of the services we provide for our customers

· services that are more joined up and easier to access

· a greater culture of service to our customers and

· structures designed around the needs of our customers.

What am I proposing?

My proposal is that simplification of the benefit system and the points of access to those benefits would make it easier for our customers to access the benefits they are entitled to.

I believe our customers would benefit from a single state welfare provider rather than the existing three. (Point to visual aid – 3 institutions transformed into 1)

Customers would benefit from a re-engineering of benefits to deliver fewer of them – perhaps about 30 benefits rather than the 61 at present. (Point to visual aid – 61 benefits down to 30 or even less)

We need a Unified Tax System that can give our customers their net monthly income.

A customer may receive £1,000 per month on various benefits when unemployed. When they start a job, on say £17,000 p.a., they need to know straightaway how much more than £1,000 per month they will receive each month to live on. This could be a single father with a child who then has a relationship with a new girl friend, a single mother with a child. What are the financial implications of living apart, living together or even getting married and what if he gets a part time job as well? What are the financial implications of childcare, looking after at home, using relatives or a registered childminder?

I believe customers would benefit from a single and personalised state welfare provider to provide and deliver a bottom line figure of how much they have to live on each month.

Our customer should be able to go to a single local centre, and have a case worker if necessary, for the administration of their benefits rather trying to deal themselves with job centre plus, DWP, HMRC, call centres and a local authority.

Tax rates matter more to rich people. Poor people need money to live on.

Our annular income tax system was designed 200 years ago for rich people at a time when poor people paid no income tax. Welfare for the poor, in those days, was being despatched to the workhouse.

Now we need a tailored service for the poor, provided by a monthly tax and welfare system. The rich have the ability and resources to plan their finances on an annular system but many of the poor cannot and so need a monthly system.

Does all this matter?

For the rich, probably yes, as far less money being spent on social administration will result in both lower taxes and better public services. This will cut waste.

Where customers are overpaid benefits they will have to repay the overpayment.

Changes in society and the way people live - for example multiple changes of partners, half of all children now being born outside of marriage and multiple changes of employment, place huge pressures on our current tax and welfare system. We need to adapt our tax and welfare system to our lifestyle of the 21st century.

My Unified Tax System will be a massive, I repeat, will be a massive undertaking, and will require the commitment of all the state, private and third sectors to achieve.

I believe that my scheme would deliver savings that would justify the costs.

Perhaps it will take a year to reach agreement on the details of my welfare reform, two years to design the new computer system and two years to move the data from our old computer systems. In 5 years time our social protection buget of £159 billion a year might be £10 billion less.

Sometimes in life we have to spend out money now to save a lot more money in the future.

We need investment now for my Unified Tax System to help deliver tax and welfare reform.

My Unified Tax System will be built round an income, expenditure and assets form. It is your income that determines your income tax. It is your property assets that determines your council tax. For the poor it is both your income and assets, as well as some of your expenditure, that determine your welfare benefits. Our customers, who are poor, need a single state welfare provider and my Unified Tax System for their welfare benefits.

Yes we do need on line services and call centres to handle most of our business but we also need local professionals in local offices delivering personalised service to many of our customers who are either poor or disadvantaged.

This personalised service will improve relationships between our citizens and the state which I believe is the key to improving social cohesion in our local communities.

We need to “Keep it simple”. Simple for our customers to understand and access services.

This is more than a win – win approach, I see it is as
a win – win – win approach.

The three wins are: -

· The Government will be seen to be providing better personalised services;

· Our staff will enjoy providing better personalised services;

· and our customers will enjoy being provided with better personalised services.

We will be seen to be living by the four parts of the Civil Service Code of: -

· Putting our customers at the heart of everything we do;

· Trusting our customers;

· Supporting our customers;

· and protecting our customers:

GB – Gordon Brown wants to alleviate poverty

GB – Geoff Bantock wants to alleviate poverty

In GB – Great Britain – we need to alleviate poverty

We need my Unified Tax System to transform 3 institutions into 1 to alleviate poverty for our citizens who are poor. (Point to visual aid – 3 into 1)

This is why I believe you should support my idea and work with me to develop it further.

What I would like from you is connections to the right people to help me present my proposals to ministers in the best possible way.

I am happy to answer any questions now.

Geoff Bantock

Visual aid

3 into 1

61 into 30

Unified Tax System at Lions Lair 6 March 2008

Geoff Bantock draft questions 04/03/08

How does this work in practice

My Unified Tax System would be on a single information and transactional website through Direct.gov presently operated by the Department for Work and Pensions. I would seek to build on the portal provisionally called ‘My DWP’, a single point of entry to interactive guides about eligibility for a range of state benefits, how to submit a claim, and who to contact for help. The cross-government identity management system currently being developed, to enable greater personalisation of services and to reduce duplication across government would be used. I see there being national identity details on a national system but that most information on income, assets and expenditure would only be accessed by staff at a local level.

How does information get onto the I&E

Identity details would automatically be populated from the cross-government identity management system. We have to have a valuation of every property for council tax properties and that could automatically populate onto the assets form showing whether it was rented (and if so who owns it), leasehold or freehold, together with latest valuation and its date. Changes of owner, together with date and selling price would cut over from the Land Registry. Gross level of monthly council tax would be automatically populated, council tax could be paid in 12 equal instalments in the future. If no benefit claimed, no further information would be entered. If benefit claimed, latest year’s gross income held on record, divided by 12, would show as the default gross income together with latest PAYE code and National Insurance rate. Details of any contribution based benefit due, such as state pension would flow from the NIRS2 system. Claimants would have to advise us of their previous month’s income and appropriate expenditure which would form the basis of all the currents month benefits. Clearly if gross income claimed is less than the default gross income an explanation would be sought. The Unified Tax System would calculate the net disposable income each month and send out a payslip with any benefits paid being paid out by direct debit. Those with variable income will need to phone with their income every month. Gross self-employed income is harder to calculate but with local professionals in local offices applying a “test of reasonableness” on customer’s current wealth and lifestyle might be the way to calculate. For really disadvantaged families, social services could calculate the amount of money families need to live on. This ability to manually calculate benefit in exceptional cases should reduce the present number of 61 benefits.

Who has access to the data

Access will be on a need to know basis. Identity details will probably have to be national on a view only basis with only certain staff being allowed to make changes.

Local details could only be accessed at local level on a view only basis with only certain staff being allowed to make changes.

How will it improve accuracy and save time

Less different types of benefits, less duplication and so customers can see each month what there monthly disposable income is. Less computer systems needed and one only welfare provider should improve accuracy. The valuable time of our customers will be saved. E.g. for a lone parent moving into part time work it is not unusual to have to complete seven different forms: for housing and council tax benefit; to stop income support; to claim in-work credit; to claim a job grant; to claim 4 weeks housing benefit run on; a form for extra help with childcare costs and a form to claim working tax credit. Each of these needs evidence, and it is not possible to claim them all concurrently. For example tax credits need to be awarded before Housing Benefit can be applied for. These forms cannot be completed in advance. The vast majority of our clients are unable to fill in these forms unaided as they are often long and confusing (the housing benefit form is over 40 A4 pages in length) – (source House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee – The Best start in life? Alleviating deprivation, improving social mobility and eradicating child poverty – published this Monday 3 March 2008)

How will it prevent fraud

Should reduce fraud as local professionals will know their local customers better. There will be better joined up IT so that income will be easier to check.

How will it ensure customers get the right benefits

Whole system will be simpler as there will be only one welfare provider. Stand alone PCs at home and in libraries can be populated with Unified Tax System ‘tools on line’ and customers as well as third or organisations such as CAB can see what entitlements they can apply for and see what the bottom line figure for various “what if” life-style choices.

Will there be any losers

Perhaps with less fraud, the only losers will be fraudsters!

How we will deliver public services in 5 years time.

1. We will have a unified computer system that can work out straightaway the net disposable monthly income of our customers after allowing for all necessary tax, national insurance, council tax, benefits, maintenance, tax credits, allowances, and student loan payments.

2. We will have local one-stop shops where we will allocate a named Customer Relations Manager to provide an increasingly efficient and high quality service for each of our customers to help them understand and meet their tax obligations and understand and receive their entitlements.

3. We will have a secure on-line portal for all the needs of our customers who prefer to use on-line services.

4. We will have substantially reduced the number of targets within Government.

5. We will use our understanding of customers’ changing needs and behaviours continually to inform, challenge and improve everything we do. We will also provide an official measure of customers’ satisfaction regarding the relationships our staff have built with them when delivering services. (My view is that perhaps we could call this the “RRI” or “Relational Richness Index”.)

6. We will be customer focused, treating our customers according to their needs and behaviours to deliver our public services.

7. We will design our processes from the customer perspective so that our customers feel the interactions are tailored to their circumstances.

8. We will simplify our interactions with customers.

9. Our guidance will be clear and strive to offer customers certainty wherever possible.

10. We will pursue rigorously those customers who choose not to comply with their responsibilities while minimising the effect on the majority of our customers who want to comply.

11. We will work with our customers, so that they can easily participate and contribute to the UK’s well being.

12. We will have a Civil Service who will be proud of their ability in delivering first class public services.

Source of some of the ideas for the above: HMRC Annual Report 2005-06 and Autumn Performance Report 2006 - HMRC’s Aim and Our Strategy. Those not included in the HMRC Report are personal opinion.

How we will pay for all this

To achieve this radical transformation of public services we will be offering those civil servants and local authority employees involved a pledge of fair pay based on fair comparison with similar jobs in the private sector combined with a pledge of no compulsory redundancies for 5 years. In addition at the end of 5 years we will pay a one off bonus of up to 10% of annual salary if feedback from our customers on the RRI shows we have substantially improved the delivery of public services (if say the RRI is 60% at the start and 70% at the end of the 5 years the bonus to all staff could be 5%, if 80% or more bonus to be 10%).

Source of idea: personal opinion.

Let us state at the start that this transformation of public services for our customers is a massive undertaking and will require the help and commitment of the entire State sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector to achieve.

We seek to build upon the Key findings of the recent HMRC Corporate Responsibility Summit – ‘Making the best bigger’ which show ‘that working together is vital’… and that … ‘The business case is clear’.

Source of some of the ideas: Making the best bigger – Report on the HMRC Corporate Responsibility Summitport on the HMRC Corporate Responsibility Summit

Other benefits that may follow in 5 years time.

1. Reduction in local authority ICT spending

Source of idea: Published on 12 September, 2006: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8164-2351720.html FOR the past five and a half years, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister — now the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) — has created a local authority ICT spend-fest totalling some £15 billion

2. Reduction in Government ICT spending
Source of idea: Published on 12 September, 2006: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8164-2351720.html Next to Whitehall though, town-hall ICT spending pales almost into insignificance, with the Government by its own admission splashing out a cool £14 billion a year on the stuff.
3. Reduction in the current number of 61 different welfare benefits people can claim

Source of idea: Anecdotal evidence

4. Reduction in the length of application forms

Source of idea: Anecdotal evidence - application forms can be more than 25 pages long at present

5. Reduction in duplication of information required

Source of idea: Anecdotal evidence - information is common to most of the other benefits claimed perhaps an overlap of information between 50% and over 90%

6. Reduction in the complexity of benefits

Source of idea: Anecdotal evidence - the implications of applying for one benefit, tax credit, grant or rebate affect your eligibility for the others but it is almost impossible to find out how

7. Reduction in the number of over 250 major IT systems within HMRC

Source of idea: Number of IT systems from HMRC Annual Report 2005-06 and Autumn Performance Report 2006

8. Substantial increase of frontline staff that both know how the business works as well as the ICT needed to deliver our customers needs