The TaxPayers' Alliance - Better Government

Community Empowerment Deadend

Community and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears has just told Public Finance magazine about her plans to devolve power right down to street level. It makes dismal reading:

"With my own roots in local politics, grounded in the streets and estates of Salford... empowerment... community engagement agenda... real opportunity... police performance regime... operating framework aligned with local indicator sets... etc etc"

Strip away the NewLabourspeak, and the idea is an old one: central government wants "community engagement" in order to cut local councils out of the decision-making loop altogether.

Needless to say, the local authorities are somewhat underwhelmed. The head of the Local Government Association, Sir Simon Milton, says:

"You can’t argue with it – petitions, community “kitties”, empowerment, things of that kind – but if you can’t stop your local post office, or your local GP surgery from closing, then actually citizens will get thoroughly disenchanted pretty quickly."

Nail walloped firmly on head. As we've blogged many times, local councils have very little independent power - they are an arm of Whitehall, largely paid by Whitehall, and therefore forced to play Whitehall's tune. But Blears' vision of street level community engagement would give ordinary people even less power: they'd be even more subject to the whims of Whitehall.

Reality check: as the chart above shows, the UK has the most centralised taxation system of any major economy. According to the OECD, only 4% of our tax revenue is raised locally, compared to around 10% in say France, and 11.5% in the US.

Step one on the road to real community empowerment is to return tax raising authority back to the local level, closer to the people who have to pay.

The public want NHS reform, not more wasted spending

In our report Wasting Lives: a statistical analysis of NHS performance in a European context since 1981 (PDF) we showed how Gordon Brown had tested the idea that more money, without significant reform, would improve the NHS to destruction.  The NHS absorbed a huge increase in funding without the long term pattern in lives saved, relative to European peers, changing.  This divergence between funding and results can be seen in the graph on the right (click for a larger version).  Despite huge increases in spending 17,000 more lives are being lost in the UK relative to EU peers due to higher levels of mortality amenable to healthcare.

A new YouGov poll for the Telegraph shows that the public are now convinced that the NHS needs reform rather than ever more funding in order to really improve.  The Telegraph report that "Sixty-nine per cent of people said reorganising the NHS is more important than spending more on it, up from 38 per cent in 1998."  In our report we set out the principles that should guide such reforms:

1. Decentralisation.  Local bodies in the NHS have little real freedom as so many decisions are made by central quangos.  Decisions can be decentralised to hospitals and doctors.
2. Encouraging competition.  Competition between hospitals and other healthcare providers will hold local providers to account more effectively than national targets.
3. Getting politicians out of management.  The health service is run by politicians with little experience of management or healthcare.  Removing the day to day management of the health service from political control would allow real improvement.

Providing welfare - invitation to the private sector

The Governments looks set to ask private companies and charities to help run the welfare state, the Telegraph reports today.

"[In a speech this evening] James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, will call on firms to help overhaul the payment of benefits" ... encouraging them to "bid to run everything from welfare-to-work schemes to projects to rehabilitate former prisoners."

This 'open invitation' follows Tory suggestions earlier in the year that private companies might play a bigger role in finding jobs for the unemployed. Such schemes in America have proved relatively successful, offering job seekers a more refined service and saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Critically, the numbers returning to welfare after their first year back in work has dropped significantly.

While initially wary of such moves, the ineffectiveness of government reforms have forced Labour to reconsider. Any move towards better services, a smaller state and lower taxes is of course welcome, but as is often the case with potentially positive proposals from this government (proposals albeit often co-opted from their opponents), the end result will no doubt be half-baked, a hollowed out compromise between Labour's pragmatic reformist wing and its old guard. Another missed opportunity.

That the Secretary of State is even considering it though is a welcome development, an indication that even Government now recognises that better government is only possible if there is less government.

With great power comes no responsibility - The Planning Commission

Parliament is gearing up for its next major confrontation with the government this week, with the return to the Commons of the controversial Planning Bill.

Despite a very real need for reform, the Planning Bill was a poor bit of legislation from the start, and in keeping with this government’s belief that passing legislation is the same as governing, concessions have been given to every remotely rebellious Labour MP.  Indeed it’s become something of a Christmas tree, and begins its third reading this Wednesday overburdened with unnecessary amendments (some reports claim there have been more than a 100 changes since its last reading). Any positive contribution this bill might have had in clearing up planning law is now probably lost.

But for the Government (and most critics of the Bill) the issue is not planning law as such, but rather the creation of a new Infrastructure Planning Commission. It's this quango which is really stoking opposition to the Bill, and it's in effort to establish this new quango that government is so readily handing out concessions.

The proposed Infrastructure Planning Commission (to sit alongside the existing £48 million Planning Inspectorate) will deal only with planning permission applications for major infrastructure projects; airport expansion, nuclear power stations, highway and rail developments and so forth. Ostensibly this will 'de-politicise' what is currently a painfully slow process, allowing swift, independent decisions to be made. Ministers and local government will be removed from the process of authorising such large-scale projects, freeing decision making from the pressures of special interests.

The cynicism - and grubby power grab - which lie behind this proposal is amazing. By 'only deal with major infrastructure projects' what is really meant is: 'what government decides is a major infrastructure project'. The potential for mission-creep is huge. The term 'de-politicise' is a red herring too: the Commission will actually centralise control of planning in the hands of central government. The only groups that will really be cut of the planning permission process are local government and the public.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will appoint all the members of the Commission, its Chairman and its Chief Executive. It will, in short, be a proxy of Whitehall. And as for freeing decision making from the pressures of special interests, the reality is rather more like freeing decision making from the bother of having to deal with the public.  Quangos are enormously susceptible to the lures of actual special interests – developers, retailers, power companies - and the Planning Commission one will be no different.

The need to reform the planning process for major infrastructure projects is real; the current system is costly, slow, often arbitrary and arguably damaging to Britain's long term future. But the Infrastructure Planning Commission is not the solution. It will reduce the public's input and no doubt end up being more expensive. Worst of all though, it will provide government - as all quangos do - with the ability to make decisions without having to take responsibility, shielding ministers from accountability. If established, it will not be long before the Commission gives permission for a project widely opposed. Government ministers will then hold up their hands, shrug their shoulders and point out (loudly and repeatedly) that it was a decision made by an 'independent' and 'expert' Commission.

But of course the Planning Commission will be nothing more than a tool for the government in power, carrying out its agenda under the guise of 'independent, impartial enquiry'. Whatever one's opinion on airport expansion, nuclear power or road building, people must see that a super-quango is not the right body to take decisions which will affect us all.

Senior civil servants to get facebook lessons

One of the most worrying things I came across in my investigation into Britain's quango state - Unseen Government - was the noticeable decline in Cabinet Office time given over to monitoring quasi-government. This was surprising, as being the gate keepers of government one might assume this to be one of their primary functions.

But all is now revealed. Rather than waste their time frivolously auditing the actions and costs of taxpayer funded quangos, they were instead preparing guidelines "to encourage civil servants to take the first steps to engage with on-line social networks", such as Facebook and MySpace. Young, 'plugged-in' civil servants - "digital pioneers" as Tom Watson the Cabinet Officer minister described them - will be seconded from their trivial jobs running the country to "enlighten their counterparts in more senior positions" to the joys of photo sharing, instant messaging and virtual 'poking'.

With all the recent failings in government management - HMRC, Rural Payments Agency, etc - one might think that civil servants would be undergoing serious training in data protection and IT. But clearly the Cabinet Office has other priorities.

An opportunity to free our schools

Fraser Nelson gives a clear, informed argument in favour of liberalising UK education, encouraging David Cameron not to miss this opportunity to revive Britain's ailing school system ... Read More

The Ministry of Defence: In need of urgent reform.

Britain’s policy of ‘liberal interventionism over the past decade has asked a lot of our Armed forces. One would expect that a government intent on using their Armed Forces, would also be one that appreciated the necessity of investment and considered governance.

This has not been the case however. Much needed increases in the defence budget – to compensate for the increases in military operations - have failed to appear, and governance of the existing defence budget by the MOD so lamentable that for many it seems as if defence spending has actually been cut. The situation is such that men like General Sir Richard Dannatt now air their concerns over low pay, poor accommodation and lack of general respect shown towards the armed forces - by both the public and government – openly, a new phenomenon.

But as a result airing these concerns, General Dannatt will it appears, be passed over for the job of Chief of the Defence Staff. The Sunday Times reported General Dannatt’s recent comments he made him powerful enemies in the Labour party.

And this is symptomatic of a wider problem at the Ministry of Defence, where the people who actually know about defence, those in the armed forces, are bound by politicians and civil servants. Problems arise when civil servants who have little experience of the defence environment, and with politicians who rarely stay long enough at the Ministry to Defence to understand the complex nature of defence, are asked to make decisions on major issues with long term strategic importance.

The nature of these long term decisions demands a greater role for the armed forces in the processes of the MOD. While the elected and democratically accountable Minster should set the strategic culture, much more should be left to those who have the knowledge and experience to that strategic view into reality. Moreover, allowing the armed forces a greater role in the ministry of defence’s administration would also allow more immediate and acceptable responses to situation’s such as poor housing and pay.

What is becoming clear is that the armed forces are uneasy about how they are being treated by politicians and civil servants. If the government is going to continue to want an effective armed force, they need to incorporate those who understand the needs and processes of the armed forces much more closely. Freezing out men such as General Dannatt because what they say is politically inconvenient will do nothing to convince people that the government is committed to those who literally lay down their lives in the pursuit of government policy.

Top civil servant brands civil service as "utterly antiquated"

A very interesting piece in yesterday's Observer reported on a damning indictment of the civil service, from one of their own.

Firstly, the credentials of the critic: the Observer report states that Zenna Atkins, 42, was holder of the Entrepreneur of the Year award in 2000, appointed to the navy audit committee in 2005 and to the Ofsted board in 2006 by former Education Secretary Alan Johnson. She is currently director of the Royal Navy Fleet Executive Board, chair of its audit committee and also chair of Ofsted. She also works in the private sector. So no shortage of expertise or experience there.

Next, the indictment, as reported by the Observer:

'I could say without doubt that significant parts of the civil service are broken,' she told The Observer. 'The machinery of government is not even in the 20th century, never mind the 21st century'....

She argued that while some parts of the civil service were 'modern and slick', many others were operating like a 'horse-drawn buggy' while the rest of society had moved on to the motor car.

'I have never met such bright people who really care about what they are doing but they are working in a machine with a set of customs, cultures, values and practices that are utterly antiquated. A lot of the time the process is more important than the outcome.'

Atkins, 42, who also works in the private sector, described how an email sent by a minister or chair could be passed between '58 people', all desperate to protect their superior from embarrassment. She gave the example of a letter being sent to the director-general of schools suggesting that he meet informally with the Olympic gold medal hurdler David Hemery to find out about the former athlete's 'phenomenal' work with young people.

'It gets into the inbox of the director-general of schools and the person who reads the emails sends it to the Olympics link in the department for children, schools and families, and they send it to the London Olympic organising committee,' she said. 'The whole thing has taken weeks of waste and not one of the people batting it between them earns less than £40,000 a year.' The civil service, she added was 'overpopulated with highly intelligent people who can't do simple, menial tasks, simply or menially'. It was also full of fiercely risk-averse people 'because no civil servant ever got fired for doing nothing. They get fired for doing something.'

She also branded the Ministry of Defence as one of the worst offenders. Speaking about the language of the civil service, she said:

'Nowhere is worse than the Ministry of Defence. It is impenetrable. You will read a memo and it will appear to be gibberish, incomprehensible. People are not known by job titles; they are known by a set of letters.'

This is an extremely interesting story, and gives us many answers as to why the civil service has performed so poorly, and why the huge amount of extra spending in recent years has failed to improve matters.

Hear, Hear Mr Clegg

The Sunday Telegraph reported that Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, is to call for an end to the "one size fits all" approach to education.

In a forthcoming speech, Mr Clegg will make the case for a dramatic change in the UK's approach to schooling, outlining plans to deliver power back to the local level. For one, the national curriculum will be cut back, made "less presciptive, and more flexible where flexibility is needed." And with less role for the state, the educational  bureaucracy in the Department of Children, Schools and Families will be reduced by half, freeing up more funding for those schools that need it most.

The speech - part of a wider series on the 'personalisation of public services' - comes on the back of recent proposals to free up school funding arrangements. While their ends are not perhaps ours - to enable more money to be channelled to 'failing schools' - their means are certainly something I can agree with . With more freedom to spend their money how they see fit, and pursue curriculum's of their own choosing, schools will be able to provide an educational service appropriate to the community it serves.

The implicit argument of such plans is that the state no longer does these jobs well. Most are aware that something is wrong with the system; Mr Clegg and the Liberal Democrats appear to have seen what it is, and while their motivations and reasoning are less then sound, returning responsibilities back to society, and limiting the role of the state is indeed the only way real steps forward can be achieved. So for now, I give a cautious "hear, hear" to Mr Clegg.

Baby steps towards educational freedom

The Times reports that successful schools are going to be given the right to expand a little.  This will mean more places in successful schools and a bit more pressure on poor performing schools to up their game.  Unfortunately, schools have only been allowed an extremely limited amount of new freedom.

Expansion is still severely limited.  Being allowed "up to 26 extra pupils a year above their official limit" does not leave a lot of room to grow.

More than that, this only allows schools freedom in one direction.  The Government have now gone some way towards accepting the principle that the right response to a shortage places at the best schools is to ensure their are more such places, instead of dreaming up new ways of rationing quality education.  Why are they restricting educational freedom to the expansion of existing schools?

There are good reasons to think that the best schools are small ones.  By only allowing good schools to expand we might put them in the unfortunate conundrum of either staying small and not offering opportunities to more children or expanding and risking their standards.  A better solution might be for new schools to be established.  Beyond that, why are we assuming that the best providers of new school places are necessarily existing schools?

What if a business can run a great school effectively, or a co-operative of teachers, or an existing school wants to support a new institution in some kind of franchise arrangement?  A successful innovation system would encourage a diversity of providers and real innovation in the way schools are run.  Swedish-style school reforms can put power over the education system in the hands of parents and allow any organisation to set up a new school and respond to parental demand.