29 September 2006
Gordon Brown's plans to devolve more executive power offer a real chance of opening up debate over government spending, starting with the Comprehensive Spending Review. But Colin Talbot somehow doubts that this will come to pass
Gordon Brown signalled in his Labour Party conference speech that he wants much Executive power to be given away, along the same lines as his early decision to give independence to the Bank of England. He said that he wants more done to 'separate the making of public policy from the independent administration of daily business'. This has been linked to the idea of creating an independent board to run the NHS and also to giving more power to local authorities.
So how about opening up the process of setting spending priorities for greater scrutiny and debate? A generous interpretation of the Cabinet-level policy reviews, tentatively announced last week, might be that this is indeed an attempt to create more open government.
Since the Spending Reviews started in 1998, they have presented the government with a golden opportunity to have a genuine national debate about priorities for spending and performance in government activity. At a time of expanding resources they could have been a focus for a sensible discussion, rather than fraught with the more usual defensive 'turf wars' among policy areas vying to avoid cuts.
That opportunity has been lost as we have had four Spending Reviews, each of which was an almost completely secretive process conducted wholly within the Whitehall village. A few outsiders such as the Local Government Association were sometimes allowed a little peek and even the odd comment, but the reviews largely operated like the traditional Budget process, with the chancellor unveiling the results to an unsuspecting and completely unconsulted public.
Sadly, the new policy reviews seem to have less to do with opening up this process than with a faltering attempt to reassert Cabinet authority – and draw back from the abyss after the alleged attempted coup by the chancellor (had someone seen a preview of Spooks?). Four policy areas – economic competitiveness; public services; security and immigration; and foreign policy – are going to be looked at. As a sign of inclusiveness, both Brownite and Blairite ministers will be sitting on the reviews.
This is actually the second attempt to prise the CSR process out of the iron fist of the Treasury. The first came when the prime minister announced that a pre-CSR report would be published this summer to 'set the scene' for the full-scale review next year. After much prevarication the Treasury finally produced a banal and feeble document as late as possible in the parliamentary timetable to ensure that Blair's 'great national debate' did not fly and Parliament was kept out of the picture.
The new attempt to 'force the Treasury to open up the Comprehensive Spending Review and take more account of views from across government', as the Financial Times put it, seems to be simultaneously an attempt to paint a 'unity and renewal' picture after the vicious infighting of recent weeks. But it might also be the price Brown has had to pay for that infamous grin as he left Downing Street. Brown was damaged by that and the new policy reviews might reflect his weakened position. There could also be wider implications for the way spending decisions are made and scrutinised.
Back in 1998 the new Spending Reviews and Public Service Agreements were supposedly going to alter forever the way government accounted for itself to 'the public and Parliament'. It might have altered how government reports after the event, but it has done little or nothing to improve participation and consultation before the big decisions are taken. Even the post-hoc reporting part has been weak and unenthusiastically received.
Research that Manchester Business School has just completed suggests that Parliament has taken relatively little notice of the results of PSAs. Select committee reports have looked at only a small proportion of the available data and then often in a fairly superficial way. The committees covering the Treasury and public administration have made a couple of substantial and sustained attempts to look at performance reporting systems. Some 'departmental' committees have tried to be more systematic, like home affairs. But mostly examination of PSAs has been at best sporadic.
Why is this? Over the summer, Manchester Business School asked select committee MPs and found a generally sceptical attitude. Most did not feel strongly that PSAs were as central to government policy as the government claims or that they had changed government accountability to Parliament. The MPs were also fairly negative about PSA data and didn't believe the public saw them as accurate. Nor did they think the government was encouraging scrutiny. They did say that their committees lacked the resources to do the job properly. The strongest positive response was to the suggestion that the National Audit Office should become much more involved in helping the committees to scrutinise government performance effectively.
It is still not too late for the government to use the select committees to open up a genuine debate on the priorities for CSR07. Select committees could even take the initiative themselves and schedule autumn hearings on the progress of the process and seek evidence from the government and, more importantly, other interested parties.
But the signs are not good. In January next year, the NAO will publish its latest findings on both the PSAs and the Gershon efficiency savings. So far the NAO reports on both have concluded that the data systems on which they are based are at best suspect. If the government really took these things seriously, as opposed to using them as window dressing, it would have put far more effort into securing accurate and impartially verified reporting, and encouraging debate about it. Instead, when its attempt at producing a government-wide annual report was criticised for selectivity and partiality, instead of correcting the faults it simply stopped publishing it.
Let's be clear here – I am not proposing some constitutionally suspect innovation. Ministers would still decide, and it is they who would be held accountable ultimately for their decisions. But, as the government itself never tires of telling all other parts of the public sector, consultation and even limited participation in decision-making are 'good things'.
It might help to shape policies better by subjecting them to external scrutiny before decisions are taken. It might win further support for the decisions when taken, even if the people offering support didn't get everything they wanted. There is plenty of research evidence that people are more willing to go along with decisions if they are consulted first. None of this is guaranteed, but it would surely be worth trying as an alternative to a process locked away in the latte-filled rooms of Whitehall?
Brown has set out his stall to create a more 'devolved' public sector with less executive power. He has even, in one area at least – war – suggested a much stronger role for Parliament. He has talked about ceding more power to local government and to public managers. He has even hinted at a new constitutional settlement based on a more formalised statement of our constitution.
The one thing he hasn't said is that we also need to strengthen scrutiny of the executive – both its political and its administrative arms. As a report this summer from the Institute for Public Policy Research pointed out, our mandarins escape effective parliamentary scrutiny behind the veil of ministerial accountability. So if Brown really wants to devolve some power, he might cast his sights from the Treasury building across Parliament Square towards the Houses of Parliament.
Colin Talbot is professor of public policy and management at Manchester University's Centre for Public Policy and Management
PFsep2006
