The government should adopt a ‘decentralisation by design’ approach to dispersing power

Decentralisation is much in vogue at present, with effeorts underway to do something about the highly centralised nature of the UK state. Here PwC’s Tina Hallett argues that a ‘decentralisation by design’ approach should be taken to ensure a coherent approach. She argues that will require behavioural change by civil servants, a strong focus on achievable outcomes, and a citizen-focussed approach.

Credit: Caroline Ramsden, CC BY NC SA 2.0

It’s clear the momentum behind decentralisation in England is growing, with the Summer Budget and productivity plan firmly embedding decentralisation in the government’s strategy for delivering growth and improving productivity.

However, while much of the focus has been on whether local government or local enterprise partnerships have the leadership, capacity and capability to take on further powers and responsibilities, it’s becoming clear that central government hasn’t fully woken up to its role in managing the transition to and operating in a decentralised environment.

Whitehall must also change and adapt to embrace decentralisation if outcomes for citizens are to be achieved and to meet the fiscal challenge. Decentralisation raises some important questions that central government needs to address as it considers the next round of ‘devolution deals’ ahead of the Autumn Spending Review.

Firstly, with the Government Regional Offices long gone, does central government need to find an alternative way to present a cohesive face to localities? From our work with LEPs and local government it’s clear that there are widespread frustrations around having to go door-to-departmental-door in order to reach a whole system settlement for local public services and local growth. The old Kissinger question of ‘who do I call?’ is often applied to the debate on directly elected mayors, but can be turned around on central government too.

Decentralisation will require central government to act in a much more joined up way, meaning civil servants need to think and act very differently. Bob Kerslake’s recent recollection of a quip from a permanent secretary who said he was very supportive of devolution as long as it didn’t interfere with his department reflects an attitude some perceive as still prevalent across Whitehall. Some departments do have a sub-national footprint, for example BIS local, and progress is being made in specific places through initiatives such as the Public Service Transformation Network, who we’re working with, that focus on bringing together local and central partners together to co-create solutions.

Secondly, in our conversations with local government, we’ve been making the case for ‘decentralisation by design’. Rather than decentralisation being an end in itself, places need to keep focused on the outcomes they can achieve through collaboration at the local level. Leeds, for example, is one place that is doing things differently through a concept called ‘civic enterprise’, which has seen the city publishing datasets through its Data Mill to encourage innovative solutions from businesses and communities, creating a trial for single patient care records, and saving the public purse millions through a joined up approach to troubled families with complex needs.

For central government, this same principle of decentralisation by design must apply. Decentralisation will rightly be a multi-speed process driven by those places with the appetite and capacity to take on additional powers and responsibilities. However, central government has a role in shaping an overall vision for where decentralisation is heading and needs to set out the ‘rules of game’. Having an enabling framework could help smooth the transition to decentralisation and safeguard against the risk of political, fiscal and public service failure.

Thirdly, and critically, is the challenge for all of government, central and local, to truly put the citizen first when rethinking public services. This means addressing both the physical front end of government, the ‘local face’ of public services, as well as the virtual, in order for citizens to experience joined up public services. Place is a critical element in personalising services, moving away from the feeling of ‘calling London’, or indeed calling or visiting a ‘placeless’ central office. Decentralisation is more than a shift from central to local government and there is a need for central government to allow local discretion over the functions that fall under its control. Greater co-location of central government bodies based in the regions or increased secondments between central and local government might be a start to moving to a model that gets people out of Whitehall and closer to the front line.

These aren’t easy questions to address, and are just some of the challenges central government needs to tackle head on if the potential prize of decentralisation is to be delivered. Central is the need for culture change in Whitehall. The relationship between central and local government is still too often a ‘parent-child’ model, and the culture is a long way from ‘decentralisation by default’.

We will be exploring these issues further in the run up to the Spending Review.

—

This post originally appeared on the PwC blogs website and is reposted with permission. It represents the views of the author and not those of Democratic Audit or the LSE. Please read our comments policy before posting.

—

Tina Hallett is the Government and Public Sector Lead Partner at PwC