Title

The way we turn government policy into local delivery is too slow, too inefficient and too expensive, says Calum Macleod ‘Muddling through' is an ancient tradition of British public life no longer sufficient for 21st century needs. Yet, it is hard to think of a better word than ‘muddle' when we look at the myriad ways in which new policies emanating from central government are translated into action and delivery at the local level. With a general election approaching, the media searchlight shining harder than ever on the role of different public sector bodies, and public spending seen as alarmingly excessive, many people are subjecting our current practices – however time-honoured – to new and rigorous questioning. The whole topic of ‘policy to delivery – how we do it in Britain' could support not just one but many PhD theses, but let's briefly remind ourselves of some of the main channels and players in current practice. First, central government departments have their own networks of regional and local offices with teams which are engaged to a greater or lesser degree in policy-to-delivery issues. This may not apply to every government department, but it certainly applies to the larger ones, such as HM Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions or the Department for Children, Schools and Families – not to mention the complex network of Department of Health/NHS organisations which span the country. And it is worth noting that each department tends to have its own individual way of carving up the country, geographically. Second, we have the network of government regional offices covering the nine English regions plus, of course, the key bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Third, there is the CLG, with its own set of key objectives and programme of liaison with other government departments, local authorities and local communities. Last but not least, we have more than 450 county, borough and and unitary authorities across the UK – the organisations, offices and front-line people who are at the sharp end for so many government policies. And this is without listing the vast range of quangos, stakeholders and delivery partners of all kinds who also regularly get in on the policy-to-delivery act. With such bewildering diversity and complexity – and the resulting costs, delays and disagreements – it is small wonder that politicians, commentators and public servants alike are asking whether there might not be a better way for central and local government to work together. In fact, there is an idea which, in my view, could combine the best of the local and the regional while, at the same time, cutting costs, speeding up delivery and tailoring policies to much closer alignment with the needs of local communities. The idea is to create informal, non-bureaucratic groupings of local authorities based not on simple, crude geography but on real-world affinities and similarities between those authorities. One possible grouping would be: small, commuter unitaries southern counties southern districts northern counties northern districts Midlands counties Midlands districts London Other major cities. What if each group had a small organisation to co-ordinate activities concerning many of the key policies, particularly linked to service delivery and performance improvement? For any given council there is an immediate affinity group, making it much easier to share the workload among all member councils as the ‘shape' and issues in the councils will be similar to start with. Such a grouping would not be an additional layer of bureaucracy. Rather, it would be a practical, informal forum for collaboration with a focus on the realities of delivery and a grounding in local experience. Another key point is the new scope and credibility such a structure could generate for local experience to influence central government policy-making – potentially saving huge sums of money and many embarrassments by nipping unworkable ideas in the bud with the secateurs of frontline experience. It would also provide a powerful boost to the quest for joined-up public services and might even, in the longer term, permit significant staff and cost savings at regional and quango level. But, whatever the national plan from 2010 might turn out to be for policy-to-delivery, one thing is certain, the status quo, with its multiplicity of structures and players – in fact, its sheer muddle – cannot continue, unaltered. Calum Macleod is head of local government at Capgemini

Title

WHITEHALL

Escaping from the muddle

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING