It seems that innovation is the new buzzword for the public sector. With money tight and getting tighter, we all have to look for fresh ways to deliver services. Thinking the unthinkable is not just possible, it’s compulsory.
Geoff Mulgan was one of many to use the ‘I’ word at CIPFA’s annual conference in Manchester last week. The Young Foundation director suggested that public services had only scratched the surface of what was possible – 95% of ideas had yet to be explored.
Innovative approaches range from the radical to the quirky. Mulgan mentioned social impact bonds and ‘complaints choirs’, a concept pioneered in Birmingham encouraging citizens to put their gripes in the form of a song.
Communities and Local Government Secretary John Denham, singing from the same sheet, called on councils to ‘look fundamentally’ at how services were provided. He said ‘the days when councils could claim that every problem could be answered by a cheque from Whitehall are over’.
Innovation is obviously important and nobody would argue for the status quo in public services. But, like efficiency savings, it is not a panacea for the funding problems faced by this government (and its successor).
Innovation will not fill the £90bn black hole in the public finances identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It will not prevent the 350,000 public sector job losses predicted over the next five years by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Despite rumours of economic green shoots, there is little to be optimistic about. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, output in the UK is set to fall by 4.3% this year with a budget deficit of 14% next year.
Debt levels are already off the scale, with even the governor of the Bank of England calling for the government to show ‘greater ambition’ in reducing borrowing. Of course, reduced borrowing means higher taxes or cuts to services.
Much has been said about rebuilding trust in the political system following the saga of MPs’ expenses. Being realistic about the limits to innovation and efficiency savings – and some honesty over the inevitable cuts in funding to come – would be a start.
