Chris Leslie, Director, NLGN
Public Servant

Subtly and without great fanfare there are changes afoot in the Government’s approach to public service reform. Alastair Darling’s first Budget speech did not dwell on the details but the associated Red Book papers outlined a quickening of pace towards the goals of value for money and policy creativity. The Prime Minister is clearly in the lead asserting what he characterises as a “third act” in public sector reform, building on the initial investment injected a decade ago, and on the focus on standards and performance in recent years. Now Brown and Darling are determined to press ahead with the diversification of service providers in order to ensure both competitive dynamics and choice for consumers. Some may have expected that the rhetoric of the Blair years would not be enacted so enthusiastically following a change in Prime Minister – but it appears that this is far from the case. The PM is keener than anyone to built-in alternative providers to challenge under-performance, to develop further the personalised budgeting that service users have at their disposal, and even expand further previously controversial devices such as the Academies programme as the best route to quality improvement.

Not only is the Government determined to employ the private sector more rigorously – especially in the delivery of technical fixes and imbuing cost disciplines in back-office services (more of which we are told to expect in next year’s 2009 Budget) – but the drive to involve the third sector is also exceptionally strong. Whether the diverse and varied nature of charities and community groups can fit within a flexible and understanding commissioning regime still remains to be seen, but there is relentless commitment at the top of HM Government to ensuring that a broad coalition of service providers becomes the norm.

While the investment priorities for Government have been clear now for some time – schools, health, crime, transport – it is interesting to see the emergence of a ‘Public Value Programme’ intended to design incentives for further value for money. The road building programme, regeneration expenditure and IT projects are all in line for closer scrutiny to ensure that they are truly delivering every bang for each buck. We are also in the early stages of a new approach to health service commissioning, led especially at PCT level, which should in theory provide challenge in every area to the usual assumptions about spending priorities.

Housing policy is a particularly sensitive area where massive efforts to counteract the external economic climate are being made by the Treasury and CLG. On both issues of new supply of units and affordability, the noise of frantic policy-makers is ever louder and we can expect novel interventions both in terms of housing finance and land use planning over the coming months.

In pure financial terms the Spending Review of 2007 set out very tightly defined limits which have forced all public bodies to dig deep, especially on the efficiency agenda. The figures are reasonably impressive (£30 billion due to be saved over the CSR07 period) but the thorny decisions on asset disposals and head office relocations are still not being taken quickly enough.

Yet despite the insistence on reform from the top of Government, is it the case that these enthusiasms are percolating into all levels of the public realm? And where does local leadership and devolved decision-making fit into this picture? We are told that this new era of public services is one where the needs of each individual will be attended to more carefully, with tailored services and one-to-one support wherever possible. Such attention to the needs of the customer is obviously laudible, but it can also be expensive and incredibly difficult to dictate from the centre. Delegating the details down to the frontline is surely long overdue, but there remains too much reluctance to trust local leadership and local democracy to make the necessary tough choices. It is certainly good news that CLG are planning an ‘empowerment white paper’ for the summer to propose new ways of involving citizens in service choices and delivery. But there is a big difference between ‘consultation’ and letting neighbourhoods choose their own destinies, especially if they vary from the national script.

The Government needs to balance careful on the tightrope between driving its own version of public service reform while simultaneously getting the most from frontline experts, trusting their judgement and allowing them to innovate. Governments quite legitimately set parameters and overarching strategies, but they must be careful to nurture and not smother the eager public service worker keen to do the right thing. We do not want more years of frontline staff waiting for permission or guidance from the centre before taking their own initiative. Government needs to encourage risk and recognise that efficiency is only one side of good management – and that creativity is still insufficiently exploited as part of our public service reform programme.