Suffolk County Council has captured the headlines over the past two weeks with its ideas for outsourcing swathes of its services and activities, transferring assets and services to communities and expecting communities and individual households to take on greater responsibility.
The media are suggesting that Suffolk is being more revolutionary than any other UK local authority - though there seems to be little, if any, ingredient that other councils have not considered. What is different, however, is the sheer scale of the transfer and contracting of services; and the political principles that seem to underpin the proposals.
Suffolk, in common with every local authority, is bracing itself for a major reduction in its central government financial support and for a lower resource base over the next three to five years. However, its response seems different from most because it appears to be driven by a desire for the council to relinquish as much service delivery as it can to others and to become a much smaller ‘strategic body’.
It is using the backdrop of severe budget pressures, the policies of decentralisation and localism as well as the concept of the ‘Big Society’ to transform the very nature and purpose of the council itself, and its relationship with the citizens of Suffolk. By any standards, this is bold and imaginative, but will it work?
To date, the published papers have set out a high-level view of the intended journey (for this will take several years to achieve) – but contain little content addressing the how, the timescales or the risks inherent in such a bold venture. One wonders at the level and nature of stakeholder consultation and engagement with service users, staff and trade unions, local businesses, the third and community sectors, and local residents. Indeed, what consultation (if any) has taken place and what is planned to be undertaken as the programme is developed and implemented?
If I were a councillor in Suffolk, an employee or a local resident let alone a user of the council’s services, I would want to ask and have reasoned, evidence-based answers to ten key strategic questions in particular:
- what is the overarching driver for the proposed changes – budget reduction and control, a new contract between citizen and council and/or an ideological pursuit of less public sector provision? What alternative options were considered?
- how will the council and, more importantly, the people of Suffolk know that the programme is on course to be successful and indeed is successful? When will it be reasonable to answer the latter of these and will there be inbuilt reviews so that the process could be adjusted (even radically) if need be?
- what is the intended pace and the speed of the changes?
- how will the council continue to meet its statutory and regulatory duties in areas such as child protection and in its duties to promote community well being?
- what appetite exists in local communities to respond to the proposals and is this universal or will there be a risk that some communities will prosper at the expense of others? Moreover, what measures will be taken to ensure some form of equity even if, quite understandably, there are differences across the county?
- what capacity and expertise does the council possess (or need to acquire) in order to undertake the change management, commissioning, procurement and client management transformation that will be needed since these require service specialisms as well as contracting expertise?
- what capacity and interest is there in the private and third sectors to bid for the range of services that will be subject to competitive tendering – noting that for some of the services in scope, there are currently no non-public suppliers and in others very few - so competition may be limited?
- does the council intend to develop community, social enterprise and third sector capacity and if so how, and how will this be funded?
- how does this set of ideas and proposals impact on partnership opportunities with the district and parish councils, NHS, police and other local agencies and the outcomes that citizens want and need?
- what are the implications of these proposals for local political accountability?
There is little doubt that the Suffolk experiment is precisely that - an experiment, because no other UK local authority has embarked on such a programme, albeit that others have adopted elements of it on a much smaller scale. To that end, the council would, if intent on such an approach, be well advised to consider piloting some of its proposals in the first instance.
Local authorities will have to take on more risk as they address their financial and wider challenges. But risk has to be understood, calibrated and managed, and it is usually good practice to test experiments and review their impact before adopting them wholesale. The risks inherent in not doing in this case could be colossal.
The council would also be well advised to consider and articulate further what the role of councillors and the council will be in the new Suffolk and indeed how democratic accountability will be sustained. There is much to be said for empowering communities, service users and staff – whereby a council has to be ready and willing to cede power and control to others, especially to communities and service users. However, this is a very different philosophy and approach from outsourcing, where a council maintains control, determines specifications, sets eligibility criteria and any charges and retains ultimate accountability for outcomes and the use of public money.
Much of the reporting on the Suffolk proposals seems to confuse these two approaches. That is not to say that the council is necessarily confusing them – it may just be the commentators. The council will need to be clear that they are different.
Inevitably too, there will be a need to undertake equality assessments for the strategy and a wider assessment of the potential impact on the local economy in the county, especially if there are to be a large number of redundancies.
Any council or public body considering major outsourcing and transfer to the third and community sectors has a duty to consider the financial and service implications and to test for value for money. This new experiment will not automatically reduce costs – unless there are substantial changes to staff terms and conditions, and/or there is significant service redesign supported by investment in new systems and people. The council also faces the prospect of additional client and contract management costs.
Suffolk County Council has started a debate across the public sector – and it is an important, necessary and timely debate. The council might be about to be very bold but will this be bold as in Sir Humphrey saying ‘Minister, that is very bold’ or is this a genuinely appropriate alternate model for local government? Or is it just an ideological or even a misguided reckless experiment that could damage local communities and the users of public services?
Local government has a specific responsibility to local people, communities and businesses - and must ensure that they honour these responsibilities. Given the financial, economic, social and demographic pressures no one can doubt that there needs to be some radical changes, but has Suffolk found the right solution for Suffolk?
To reach a judgement, we (and the citizens of Suffolk) need the answers to the questions posed earlier and, most importantly, we need to know what local people think. Without public authorisation and consent it might prove the wrong decision to rush into implementation of what could be irreversible actions with dramatic consequences.
John Tizard is director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships (CPSP@LGiU)
