Can councils be the consumer’s best friend?

August 11, 2009

Chris Leslie,
The Guardian

When you flick the light switch in your living room, do you need to know how the current is affected by the resistor or the nature of the wiring as it reaches the bulb? Or do you simply expect that your command will have an instantaneous result?

Many public service managers are waking up to the parallel results we all expect from public services today; outcomes that suit our expectations without the hassle of navigating the internal wiring of the state. Public managers are realising that as consumers of healthcare, environmental, educational or streetscene services, our tolerance for bureaucratic pedantry has given way to a consumerist demand for high quality responsiveness designed around our needs. And whether they are paid officials or elected representatives, these public service decision-makers know that in a post-deferential age they must live up to the mark or face the wrath of a 24 hour media poised for the kill.

The public want increasing convenience and responsiveness from service providers, to a quality they would expect whether as individual paying customers or as taxpaying citizens. Many local authorities are now weaving together the basket of public service providers into one-stop shop facilities where residents can quickly access the information and decisions they require – the Gateway service being rolled out across Kent is a strong example of this approach. The management of separate divisional lines of activity, where middle managers jealously guard their organisational boundaries, is increasingly recognised as an outdated technique. Heads of service are realising that their back-office HR functions, data processing and even customer-facing activities can be shared with other organisations.

As services conjoin there is a better chance that the user, rather than the deliverer of the service, will be king. Lifestyles are changing rapidly and we each have our particular preference for accessing public facilities. The commuter finds it hard to understand why they cannot visit any GP anywhere in an era of electronic patient records. The student may prefer to register for a service online, while the busy parent may prefer to get advice face-to-face on a weekend. Joining up services requires a provider perspective that rises above statutory design, geography or professional inflexibility.

Of course, the buzzwords of the moment – ‘Total Place’ – are exciting many who yearn for the next iteration of joined-up government. Sir Michael Bichard’s catchy characterisation of the Treasury’s efficiency-driven idea describes a potential strategy for squeezing value from the total public expenditure deployed in a given area. Thirteen ‘pilot’ areas are currently assessing their holistic spending ‘footprint’ with a view to considering later in the year how a more strategic use of taxpayer’s money might yield results. While an elevated overview of how taxpayer resources are deployed is a necessary level of analysis, I am not convinced that it is a sufficient reform. Just because we realise that the NHS spends roughly the same in Bradford as the local council doesn’t actually change the way these two institutions pool their activities. And if the Treasury’s ‘Total Place’ initiative is merely about efficiencies rather than qualitative improvements in services, then the resistance from each budget-holder will not be challenged by pressures from consumers. Indeed, if consumers get wind that a centralising grab for local resources may undermine the calibre of their personal service, then their fury will quickly turn against Whitehall. A continuous improvement in service quality is the only language the public will countenance, which means that new skills in delivering ‘more-for-less’ productivities will be the premium commodity.

Strong and innovative local government is critical to the drive for joined-up delivery, with leaders in touch with the wishes of their residents, free to do deals and try out new ideas. Fighting against the command-and-control straitjacket endemic in UK public services, local councils are progressively building integrated partnerships with the police, NHS, jobcentreplus and other agencies. While their elected mandate allows a motivated local authority to show the lead in this endeavour, there are still too many quangoised national bodies waiting for some other service to make the first move.

Should it matter that local councils act as the umbrella organisation catalysing this new connectivity? While there is a school of thought that says “the public don’t care who provides services”, we must not mistake consumer resolve for some sort of beggar-my-neighbour attitude. Most people believe that accountability and transparent standards are crucial elements in the implied contract, even if service users never have cause to complain. Whether in-house or commissioned externally, local people cherish their ability to expose poor service and vent their displeasure (or approval!) through the ballot box. Perhaps the key to reorienting public services around the customer – and to revitalising local democracy – lies in allowing elected councils to coordinate the myriad of service providers and be held responsible for the results.


Explore More