With more than half the austerity cuts still to come, public sector leaders need to be bold and imaginative about how they respond. If not, it will be service users who lose out
As the sun shines and summer continues it may be too tempting to try and forget the financial crisis in public services.
Less than half the cuts implicit in the government’s current public expenditure plans have not yet been implemented and we know that there will be further cuts following the 2015 general election.
This scenario – that there are at least as many if not more cuts already planned let alone those that will follow the next Spending Review – is truly hard to comprehend given that across the country we are currently witnessing public service closures, reductions and/or deteriorating standards in other services, increased hardship as a result of cuts to benefits, and the public sector making staff redundant.
The harsh reality is that most public bodies have already picked the low hanging berries and used the majority of whatever reserves they had. They have commonly driven the price paid for contracts down to levels that will both endanger the survival of suppliers and damage service quality. And they have typically ceased or dramatically cut grants to the voluntary sector and for cultural, sporting and other life-enhancing activities. It takes no expert to appreciate that any further round – or rounds – of central government cuts will be very painful.
The prospects for public services, those who work in, and those who rely upon them would seem depressingly bleak. It is clear that further cuts beyond 2015 will undoubtedly change the public service landscape irrevocably. Simply taking a few percent off ‘this’ and ‘that’ budget will not be sufficient to balance the books, and it most certainly will not offer the protection and hope that the public has rightly come to expect from public services and collectively funded services.
There has to be a better and bolder set of responses.
Some public bodies, including local authorities, are already embarked on radical reform and change programmes but sadly, many are not and in far too many cases, there seems to be major gap between rhetoric and reality. Perhaps this should not be surprising given the magnitude of the cuts being imposed by central government policy – but nonetheless, it is deeply troubling.
There is a case – in my opinion, a very strong case, both economic and political – for a slower and more considered national budget deficit reduction programme and for one that has a greater reliance on tax increases and growth than the current government intends. Sadly, however, there seems little appetite for such an approach across all parties.
Personally, one of my additional and great frustrations is that it would be possible for central government, even if it remains determined to address the deficit challenge through expenditure cuts, to do so in a different way.
It is undeniable that much of the current programme is driven by a desire to reduce the role of the state and for other ideological reasons. But we have been here before. In the 1980s, when the government was imposing cuts (though not to anything like the degree of the current and future planned ones), there was strong and often effective political opposition from local government, the trade unions and civil society. Without repeating the mistakes and a replication of the 1980s, it would be good to see a stronger coalition of local government, civil society (including charities and trade unions) – and one would hope businesses too – arguing against the severity and pace of cuts and their social consequences.
However, given that more cuts are to be expected and would seem to be absolutely inevitable, they have to be planned for too. This requires some bold and very hard choices for political leaders and public sector executive leaders, especially in local government.
Inevitably, these leaders have no choice but to consider (and, deliver upon): stopping doing some things; doing others in very different ways; more co-design and co-production with individuals and communities; new and innovative ways of working with the social and voluntary sectors and businesses; sharing resources and services; and more focus on managing demand. Such challenges cannot be addressed solely through supply side management. Indeed many of the previously tried approaches such as outsourcing are proving to be ineffective and/or inappropriate.
No two places will respond in exactly the same way (which is right, since local circumstances differ) but there are some general approaches that, I suggest, must now be adopted. These include:
• setting a clear vision and politically-based, five year objectives against which all actions and possible options should be evaluated ( see more on this below)
• involving the public, service users and their representatives, staff and their trade unions, local businesses, civil society including charities, faith and community groups in decision making – and above all, avoiding superficial exercises that simply serve to alienate stakeholders rather than bring them together
• talking in serious and meaningful terms, both to these stakeholders but also to potential suppliers from all sectors about new ways of working and innovation
• encouraging and incentivising experimentation and innovation, as well as local enterprise
• adopting a clear social value and ethical framework
• investing in strategic, engagement and communication, commercial, commissioning and procurement skills
• investing in people (staff) support and adopting firm policies to protect terms and conditions and not expect staff to pay a double price for the cuts
• cutting unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy but not doing so solely for ideological reasons
• devolving to communities and placing greater emphasis on co-design and co-production
• introducing interventions to secure long term prevention and other benefits
• adopting processes to test both any proposed cut and the quality and current relevance of existing services. These will include:
- equality impact assessments
- wider impact assessments of public value– those services that have least impact need to be reviewed very closely and honestly
- value for money tests and long term cost benefit appraisal
- assessment of the impact on other parts of the public sector or indeed the local economy and society
- reviewing and testing the impact of cuts made over a three year period; and learning the lessons – local authority scrutiny and overview committees and Labour’s proposed local ‘public accounts committees’ (or some other hybrid acceptable to all parties) could have major roles to play here
- looking seriously at what others are doing/have done; and learning the lessons; it is no use talking about ‘world class services’; and ‘transformation’ if there is no real appetite to learn from the best (wherever that may be), challenge what has gone before –and where necessary, change and transform
- using accessible and direct language to explain what is being done and why; citizens, local communities, and partners deserve to be treated respectfully and without obfuscation
- being fully transparent – which means walking the talk re espoused value
- ensuring political accountability
It is easy to write a list like this, and it is easy to read – if not digest the full implications immediately. There will be change whatever happens and it is best to have managed and controlled change based on firm values rather than see services wither haphazardly. Honestly and courageously addressing the actual financial pressures and cuts of the magnitude that the public sector is currently facing is far from easy!
I think that the key to maintaining both focus and heart is to keep in mind at all times the reason why we have developed and sought to sustain public services: to promote the achievement of social justice and fairness; secure greater opportunities and equality; address poverty and marginalisation;; facilitate economic growth and entrepreneurship; expand access to cultural and sporting opportunities; and much more.
I believe that to be successful, to survive, and to deliver on the above, local and national political and executive leaders for this new austere era need to be: visionary; passionate for social justice and the value of good public services; ready to copy, seize and mix the best of commercial and public practice from wherever; entrepreneurial in spirit; and above all, to be willing to be bold, to challenge and to take some risks.
Those leaders who don’t feel up to the task need to remove themselves from the field, for unless they do, the public (whom they claim to serve) will be the losers.