Pride in Public Service

Speech by Sally Hamwee delivered to LGIU Conference on Sat 15th Nov 2003

This conference is entitled "Pride in Public Service", and that concept - pride (or otherwise) - seems to me to be very much at the heart of it. And whether public servants, and I include Members in this, show themselves to be proud of what we do (or otherwise) affects how others view any given service and its delivery. I don't make a point of following the activities of the Adam Smith Institute, so I can't tell you the outcome of their competition to find the silliest public sector job title. But the Independent had an article on the shortlist.

"Democratic Services Officer (DSO)" - it had never occurred to me to giggle at that.

"Scrutiny Coordinator (Health)" - I don't think that is silly, though I know that the Scrutiny Officers at the GLA say that they always have to explain what they do - but that is probably because scrutiny is not a familiar activity.

"Walking Officer", "Five-a-day local area coordinator", "Diversity Coordinator", "Smoking Cessation Specialist: Inequalities" - the titles may be clumsy, but they are clear. And as the Independent said: just what does an institute named after a man called Smith know about snappy titles anyway?

Language matters both because of what we say and the implied messages. I think we should all be talking up the public service (which I accept is not quite the same as public services). If there was more respect for the professionalism of public servants, would there be less temptation for Whitehall to keep meddling? We are all familiar with problems which, for instance, teachers have in being diverted by paperwork and repeated changes in systems from actually teaching. On the other hand, I do not overlook the need for mechanisms to enable the views of pupils, parents and so on to be voiced and acted upon. And for those responsible for the service to be assured of its quality.

Meddling is in part a legacy of the 1980s. It was put about then that:

Teachers are all Marxists

Social workers are incompetent

Civil servants are timeservers waiting for their pensions

Local government officers are lazy.

So to start with, let's keep on applauding the public service ethos.

But public services - systems - are losing trust. An awful lot more people trust doctors than the NHS. (And interestingly the same is true of the law where far more trust judges than the legal system.)

But the pattern from MORI's survey of satisfaction of public services shows a slide across almost all services from 1998 though 2000 to 2002 - from the fire service, to street lighting, to local secondary schools. Or notably a reduction in "very satisfied", compensated in part by an increase in "fairly satisfied".

Are we becoming more demanding? Are our expectations increasing? And if they are, can public services continue to expand to meet demand?

Government acknowledges the need for greater investment and at the same time talks about the "draining culture of welfare dependency". But as the profile of the population continues to age and many services experience real problems in recruitment and retention, investment must remain a key ingredient for improvement. Provided of course it is used effectively. And that it reaches the front line. And for the front line to be effective, it needs to have certainty over a reasonably long period. And to be recognised that the front line (both of those who deliver and those who receive services) tends to be best placed to make many of the assessments and decisions.

When I was a councillor, I welcomed Audit Commission assistance is assessing how well we were doing. But this was in the early days of performance review. Have league tables and third party assessments gone too far? When does spreading best practice become central target setting - or perhaps, when did it become so? If you're not at the top of the table, you are characterised as pretty poor indeed.

It is not surprising that there is evidence in London for instance that some hospitals are not being honest and transparent about their performance because of the pressures of the star rating scheme, flinging everything they've got into the day when A&E is inspected, to the detriment of the service on other days.

Now we have the latest Local Government Act - "Freedoms and Flexibilities" for local government - when we, central government, choose to confer them. Over the years, to the point of tedium, I have urged recognition that local authorities should have discretion and autonomy and the right to make mistakes. I recognise that this may mean the service is not as good as it might be. But that's why the user has the right to use the ballot box.

Do you remember when passengers became customers? The language is now often that of the consumer, client, customer. But we are all also citizens. I hate the phrase "Londoners deserve" - they don't earn health services, or their refuse collection services. There are rights here.

I am an unreconstructed enthusiast for local government and, therefore, not a supporter of a move to directly-elected single service boards. Local government is joined up. It's about setting priorities.

I am also horribly aware of the disengagement of citizens/residents from the political process. But isn't it a good way to boost community involvement, to inform the public, remedy problems, handle complaints, consult - if you do it well.

Recently I attended a small seminar to discuss single service delivery agencies with separately elected boards. Several people there wrote in their notes "nutters", I wrote "obsessives". I certainly don't characterise all who want to contribute in this way, but elections to single service boards must carry the strong possibility of attracting those with an interest which is not balanced by an awareness of competing pressures. Being forced to address a problem by someone who is, well, forceful, is not a bad thing but is it the right model of governance?

Just one question: how representative can such boards be?

Because it's the representative, democratic nature of local government which gives it legitimacy. And it is its ability to deliver services well which gives local government the legitimacy to take on the role of the community leadership.

A local authority can claim to act on behalf of its community/electorate, rather than narrower, sectional interest groups. And councillors also point to the expectation that councils will take on community representation, even when they don't provide the service. Local authorities don't control police officers, but community safety is a huge concern so local authorities and individual councillors just have to get involved.

Of course, local authorities don't provide all services for which they are responsible. We talk of competition supporting the purchaser/provider split, but there may be only one provider available capable of delivering the contract in question. And some private (in the sense of non-governmental) companies have to be bailed out. In London we have recently had the example of the company which runs the congestion charge scheme having its contract renegotiated after three months of the scheme because the administration was so unsatisfactory. And who got paid more because of the renegotiation? Not Transport for London. Transport for London needed Capita more than Capita needed TfL.

I have said that language is important, and service providers don't always do themselves any favours by the language they use. This week I travelled back from Cardiff to London on a train which was a bit late and then went slow over the last part of the journey. We had a series of announcements apologising for this, and each time we were told "it's because we're behind another train" - some things are just bleedin' obvious.