Covid-19 (Public Services Committee Report)
Lord Bichard Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a member of the committee I welcome this debate, partly because it gives me an opportunity to warmly thank both the noble Baroness for the way in which she has chaired the committee and the staff for the quite exceptional way in which they have supported us.
Some of us have spent many happy hours down the years talking to empty rooms about the need to reform government, not because we long for some bureaucratic nirvana but because we were convinced that without reform some of the most disadvantaged people in our society would continue to experience poor, difficult-to-access services, and we as a nation would continue to waste scarce public money. So I was pleased that for its first report the committee chose to look at what the pandemic could teach us about our public services, and I was not surprised that it concluded that there was now an overwhelming case for reform, notwithstanding the outstanding commitment of so many of our public servants. That view seems now to be shared by the Government themselves because in their own Declaration on Government Reform, published just a few weeks ago, they accepted that the pandemic
“has … exposed shortcomings in how government works.”
I hope the Government will now revisit the committee’s recommendations, particularly the eight principles of reform that the chair referred to earlier.
For today, I shall focus on four of those principles which, surprisingly, the declaration of reform barely mentions. The first, as has been said, is the need to prioritise prevention and early intervention. Our system of government is designed to respond to problems rather than prevent them, and the pandemic has demonstrated how short-sighted that can be. Covid hit hardest those with preventable disease, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, living in poorer communities. It is not just in the field of health that we need to prioritise prevention. Our prisons are full of people who have been failed by the education system, whose mental health problems have never been addressed and whose addictions have been left untreated. We are now seeing the cost of responding too slowly to the impact of climate change, measured in terms of the human misery caused by flooding and pollution. Any credible vision for the future and the reform of government has to prioritise a shift from response to prevention.
It also needs to tackle the issue of sharing data. The declaration of reform mentions data only as a way of enhancing the accountability of services. While that is important, the committee found countless—and I mean countless—examples of how the failure to share data between services has stood in the way of improving those services and providing essential services. We were told that schools are often not aware that a pupil is receiving support from social services, GPs are not told that a family is involved in a child protection process and criminal gangs are able to exploit teenagers in county lines because of the failure to share information between the police, children’s social care and health. We found some excellent examples of how, during the pandemic, services had found new ways of sharing data—usually at the local level—to benefit clients, but in a governance system that is now so fragmented we have to find better permanent ways to share information across bureaucratic boundaries if we are ever to reform government.
As the chair has said, the committee also saw many great examples of how charities, community groups, volunteers and the private sector had delivered essential services, often supported by their local councils. These non-statutory services, not for the first time, showed how they could respond quickly, how they could innovate and make services more accessible and how they were more trusted than traditional providers. To be fair, we saw many examples of how statutory services had helped them by introducing new flexibilities, not least in the way in which services were commissioned. Again, though, our concern was that these changes would not survive the return to normality. We felt strongly that the new normal should be about services for public good being provided by a coalition of providers, some statutory, some voluntary, with those in the voluntary sector being given real parity of esteem as professionals in their own right.
Lastly, the committee became persuaded that, in future, public services should be designed and delivered with a great deal more user involvement. We heard how the failure to do that in the past had resulted in services being provided in the wrong place, at the wrong time and in the wrong way. Civil servants and local officials need to find new ways to involve citizens and users, children included, not via ever more sophisticated consultations but by way of genuine co-design and co-production. That is especially important if the inequality of access experienced by minority groups is to be tackled.
The pandemic exposed serious flaws—we need to be honest about that—but the innovative response from so many points us to how we should change by creating a system where public services are more devolved, co-designed with users, focused on prevention, delivered through diverse providers and better at working in partnership and sharing data. That should be our future.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Lord Bichard Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, in declaring my interest as chairman of the National Audit Office Board I hope that I will not be precluded on this occasion from thanking the Minister for bringing forward the amendments to Clause 11, which I am happy to support. In large part, the amendments deal with the concerns which the NAO had with the original draft, in particular by deleting the Bank’s power of veto over NAO value-for-money studies. As a result, these amendments protect the independence of the NAO and necessarily enhance the accountability of the Bank. I am grateful to the noble Lord and Members across the House who have helped to achieve a very happy outcome.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the progress that my noble friend has made since we discussed this matter on 9 November, when concern was expressed that we had not got the interface between these two independent institutions in the right place. I was delighted to hear that peace has broken out between these two institutions. My noble friend said that the memorandum of understanding would be published in due course. My noble friend Lord Higgins pressed him a little further. Will it be available during the passage of the Bill, which started in this House and will go to another place, because I am sure that it would be of interest? Finally, does one really need proposed new paragraph (d) in Amendment 9 in the memorandum of understanding? If under proposed new paragraph (c) a procedure has been established,
“for resolving in a timely fashion any dispute”,
why does one need paragraph (d), which asks for a procedure where the dispute has not been resolved?
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Lord Bichard Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, if I might be allowed a moment of personal explanation, I was advised earlier today by the clerks that the Addison rules of 1951, of which I have to admit I was not previously closely informed, might be argued to preclude someone who holds the position that I do of chair of the board of the National Audit Office from speaking on these issues or indeed from moving the amendment. I do not wish to put myself in the position of appearing in any way to act inappropriately or against the rules of the House so I readily, albeit reluctantly, agreed not to speak further in this debate. I hope, however, that the House will allow others who have supported the amendments that I tabled in good faith to move them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I take that as a kind of personal statement.
Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]
Lord Bichard Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I should declare an interest as the chair of the board of the National Audit Office and it is in that capacity that I want to address the audit proposals contained in Clauses 9 to 11. I should say at the outset that, unlike the previous speaker, I have major reservations about these proposals. Those reservations are shared by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, as has been mentioned. We believe that the clauses as drafted are deeply flawed and that, if they remain, they will create an expectation that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is prepared to carry out value-for-money studies in circumstances that would compromise his independence. They would also create a damaging precedent for other audit work across government. Let me explain those concerns by reference to specific clauses.
Clause 11 seeks to provide the Comptroller and Auditor-General with powers to undertake value-for-money studies at the Bank but does not provide for the audit independence that is essential to genuine accountability. The importance of this independence is enshrined in the National Audit Act, which applies to most of the C&AG’s work. Under that Act the C&AG has,
“complete discretion in the discharge of his functions”,
whether any examination is carried out,
“and … the manner in which any … examination is carried out”.
Under the Bill, the C&AG would not be able to decide whether an examination was carried out but would instead have to persuade the Court of the Bank of England to allow him to examine an area. This clearly limits greatly the C&AG’s freedom of action and therefore his ability to hold an important public entity to account for the use of its resource.
The Bill also states that the C&AG’s examinations are,
“not to be concerned with the merits of the Bank’s general policy in pursuing the Bank’s objectives”.
This is a further unacceptable constraint on the independence of the NAO and differs again from the language used in the National Audit Act. That legislation prohibits the NAO from questioning the merits of policy objectives but, in contrast, the Bill prohibits the questioning of the policy fulfilling those objectives and, as such, it limits and confuses the C&AG’s remit. I assume that the Bank, or maybe others, have argued that to give the NAO full value-for-money rights would limit the Bank’s own independence. But the NAO already operates in many different sectors with full rights, without impinging on the independence of the public bodies concerned.
It has always been accepted by the C&AG that he cannot, for example, question the merits of policy objectives. In many circumstances—for example, in the military—it is accepted that it would not be appropriate to question operational decisions. In the context of the Bank of England it is entirely accepted that it would not be appropriate, for example, to examine the Bank’s interest rate decisions. To suggest that the NAO might take a different view is to ignore decades of experience of successive C&AGs in the most sensitive areas of government. If this clause remains as drafted it will inevitably set a damaging, indeed dangerous, precedent for audit and accountability right across government. The NAO currently audits a wide range of public bodies, including the recent addition of Network Rail. Many of these, like the Bank of England, are concerned to be independent of government in their operational decision-making. If these provisions remain as drafted then every new body, and many existing ones, will want the same ability to veto and limit the NAO’s work, to the great disadvantage of Parliament and the taxpayer.
I can be more succinct in dealing with Clauses 9 and 10. Clause 9 seeks to provide the C&AG with some of the powers he would have if he was the auditor of the Bank’s financial statements. This aims to ensure that he has access to the information he would need to identify and undertake VFM studies. However, given the severe limitations placed on the C&AG’s VFM examinations, this is little more than ceremonial in reality. Clause 10 seeks to ensure that the activities of the Bank which are the subject of an indemnity or guarantee given by the Treasury, and which therefore represent a risk to public funds, are audited by the C&AG. The Bank would still, however, have the power to elect which aspects of the relevant financial reporting framework to accept—thus limiting again the NAO’s ability to conclude on the truth and fairness of financial statements.
I will make three further points of clarification. First, the NAO did not at any point lobby for powers over the Bank. The NAO was approached by the Treasury, not the other way around. When it became clear that the proposed clauses, as drafted, were unacceptable, the C&AG informed the Treasury of his strong concerns at the earliest opportunity. However, the clauses remain.
Secondly, the C&AG has sought to achieve some consensus with the Bank, and met with the deputy governor for prudential regulation on 3 September. At that meeting, he offered further discussions on the audit arrangements. Regrettably, that offer has not been taken up by the senior management at the Bank.
Finally, some might argue that some access on the part of the C&AG is better than none. However, limiting access in the way the Bill now proposes would create an expectation that the C&AG was prepared to carry out value-for-money studies in circumstances that would compromise his independence. He is not. It would also, as I have said, create a damaging precedent. Neither the C&AG nor the board of the National Audit Office regards this as acceptable, and I will therefore seek the removal of these clauses from the Bill, if the further discussions already kindly offered by the Minister do not find us a way forward.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]
Lord Bichard Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard) (CB)
My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee on the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Voluntary and Charitable Sectors
Lord Bichard Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my charitable interests as set out in the register, and also draw attention to the fact that I am not the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who has kindly agreed to exchange our speaking slots so that I am free to take up my Woolsack duties later.
We should all acknowledge and celebrate the long-standing and unique contribution which the voluntary and charitable sector has made in this country. We would be incalculably poorer without it. However, debates such as this—and I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for having secured it—provide us with an opportunity to go beyond gratitude and celebration and think about how the sector might be enabled to play an even greater and more significant part in our society in the future.
At their best, the voluntary and charitable organisations that I know have three qualities, which are even more valuable today than they have ever been before: first, they are trusted, and often very much more trusted than the statutory sector; secondly, they are innovative, at a time when we need innovation and new ideas more than ever; and, thirdly, they can help release the potential of individuals in our communities, a potential which exists and which we need but which so often can go unrealised. However, I believe that the role they play could be even further enhanced and their impact increased if the Government, the Civil Service and other parts of the statutory sector, which hold the real power and resource, worked harder to capitalise on those strengths.
The sector, for example, is still, in my view, too rarely involved early enough in the development of new policy and is still too often seen as a delivery vehicle, and one which can receive less resource than equivalent public sector agencies to do the same work. There is still too little evidence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, of social value commissioning, whereby commissioners take wider social benefits into account when making decisions about contracts. The statutory sector can still be slow to engage in genuine local partnerships to provide services for public good, as if somehow fearing a loss of hegemony. If the priority is to deliver quality, client-centred services with less resource, as I believe it is and should be, then we all need to be less concerned about protecting our power base and more concerned about sharing power for the benefit of clients.
If we say that the voluntary sector is a true partner then, at a very basic level, it would be good if we consulted the sector at an earlier stage when considering legislation or secondary legislation. I sit on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and it is a concern of ours that government departments are not good enough at the moment at consulting those who really understand the issues.
Where might the voluntary sector therefore focus its efforts in the future? The answer, of course, is that the sector has proved very adept at identifying gaps in services in the past and I am sure that it will in the future. We should be careful not to be too directive, but I offer four thoughts for the future, none of which is particularly original.
First, I think that the sector could play a more significant part in regulating, inspecting and holding to account statutory services. I applaud the way in which the Care Quality Commission intends to involve what it calls “experts by experience” in its inspections. I say this because the danger is that regulation has become too introspective, too process driven and, most of all, too dominated by bureaucrats. The way we regulate and inspect our public services should put clients to the fore and I believe that our voluntary sector can help to ensure that that happens.
The second issue—I am certainly not the first and I will not be the last to say this—is that the sector needs to be adequately resourced to offer independent, reliable advice and information to ensure that the public can make the right decisions in the face of major changes to our benefits system, our pensions system and legal aid. I guess that I really need to declare an interest in that my wife runs Citizens Advice, as some noble Lords will know. Many vulnerable people find it increasingly difficult to understand and therefore to access services to which they are entitled. The legislation and secondary legislation is extremely complex and the forms, frankly, are often beyond me.
Thirdly, I would like to see the sector play a crucial role—it does; it could do more—in developing local communities so that they build the capacity to offer support to those who are suffering, for example, mental health breakdowns, relationship breakdowns, dementia and loneliness. We have become a society which is too dependent, in my view, on the state. I believe that we should be building the partnerships I referred to in order to ensure that communities themselves play a part in self-support.
Finally, the sector can provide alternatives to failing public services, with judicious investment. Of course, it is not a faultless sector. Others have referred to this. Some voluntary organisations could collaborate more effectively to use their scarce resources. Some, frankly, have come to the point where they have outlived their natural life. It is not a perfect sector, but the overwhelming majority of voluntary sector organisations are jewels in our crown and we just need to help them to shine a bit more brightly.
Government’s New Approach to Consultation: “Work in Progress” (SLSC Report)
Lord Bichard Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard
My Lords, I have experienced consultation from several different perspectives during my long years. I have experienced it as a local authority chief executive, as a senior civil servant, as a quango chair, a chair of several major voluntary organisations, and as a non-exec of a private sector organisation providing services for the Government. These experiences have taught me some important lessons.
This first is that, as a rule, and with some honourable exceptions, civil servants instinctively do not much like consultation because it rather slows down the process of implementing their favoured proposal and can throw up some inconvenient but valid objections which even—heaven forbid—Ministers might find convincing. For many of the same reasons, some Ministers and quango chairs are sometimes inclined to circumnavigate the consultation process while, in contrast, voluntary organisations and private providers much value consultation because they often feel that the frequent changes to government policy and operating procedures could and would benefit from more, not less, consultation.
From these various experiences, I have been convinced that policy can be greatly improved as a result of effective consultation. There are many examples of that having happened. It has not yet been mentioned that consultation is also much more likely to ensure that legislation and policy changes are introduced with public support rather than in a hostile environment.
Consultation matters, as the chairman of the committee of which I, too, am a member, so eloquently said. This is a serious and important matter. It is not arcane. It is not just a matter for the nerds, or something that can be swept into the long grass. Not only does it matter, it needs to be regulated to ensure that it is conscientiously and thoroughly undertaken.
Strangely, before the Government introduced these new guidelines, there was, as has already been said, advice in place. It had been agreed with the voluntary sector and other interested stakeholders, and seemed to be working rather well. Although it set a uniform 12-week period for consultation, common sense accepted that sometimes a shorter period would be needed, and that happened when necessary. But perhaps, without having time to look at the statistics which demonstrated that this was being operated sensibly, Ministers were convinced by their officials that this was all taking up too much time, was excessively bureaucratic and was delaying the implementation of vital government policy, and so the new guidance was issued.
Oddly, since it was about consultation, it was not felt necessary to consult those affected. Nor was it felt necessary to prohibit commencing consultations at the start of holiday periods when those affected might not be available. Surely no one would do that deliberately. However, it has happened rather a lot to be a coincidence. It was not even felt necessary to require departments to publish a response to consultations so that respondees could at least see that their views had been considered rather than peremptorily ignored. Of course, if people cannot see that their views are taken note of, they very quickly decide that it is not worth being involved in a consultation at all. A commitment, as has been said, was made to digital consultation as the norm, with no attempt to identify groups for whom this would cause serious problems. No commitment was made at publication for an independent review of how these new arrangements were working.
It has been said that when the Minister appeared before the Select Committee, he appeared to concede significant ground on all these points. Perhaps it would have been helpful to make clear that consultation during holiday periods was not desirable; perhaps it would have been useful to publish some analysis of responses; and maybe an independent review would have been helpful. But the Minister’s later, more considered response suggested that all these matters would merely be looked at as part of the review; not now to be undertaken independently and externally but by the Cabinet Office—which is not perhaps entirely dispassionate on the matter—with advice, it seems, from an advisory committee. At this point I am trying to recall which episode of “Yes Minister” contained this storyline, because I am absolutely certain that there was one. I have been away and I have not had a chance to research that.
The final irony is that these changes have been made to inject a sense of urgency into the policy process and to reduce bureaucracy. So far their introduction has provoked widespread opposition and criticism. It has caused the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Select Committee to discuss the proposals on at least four occasions, with the Minister attending one of those; it has led to the establishment of a review; and it has led to the establishment of an advisory board and the likelihood of many further debates when the review is published.
Perhaps most important of all, it has suggested that the Government’s commitment to the big society and listening to the voice of civil society is more about rhetoric than a genuine desire to listen to the views of interested parties—especially, I am sad to say, if their views are inconvenient. I suggest that it would be better, even now, to revert to the previous guidelines and, if not, to have a properly independent review carried out with greater urgency than we have seen so far.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Bichard Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard
My Lords, it is always tempting to believe that simple changes will solve complex problems. Indeed, many of us have reached these giddy heights because we have convinced others that we have a simple solution to their complex problem. Too often, our simple solution has involved changing the composition or structure of our national institutions, which is why so many of them have changed so rapidly over the past decade or more.
The reality, of course, is that changing the composition or structure of an institution rarely improves its performance. To do that, you have to look beyond the structure and examine how it operates and how the systems work or do not work. In the context of reform of this House, the lesson of experience is that changing the composition of the House will achieve little. Actually, that is not quite true: it will undermine the primacy of the other place; it will add yet further elections to our increasingly confused democratic landscape; and it will probably increase, rather than reduce, political patronage.
The sadness is that reform is needed; indeed reform is overdue. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, have pointed us in the direction of reforms with which we would probably all be able to agree, here and in the other place. Our reforms should also address the current shortcomings of Parliament, not just of this House. Regrettably, those shortcomings are not difficult to find. I say that so as not to be accused by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, of being smug. For a start, as other noble Lords have said, we simply have too much poor quality legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, found out by asking a Question for Written Answer in January, significant parts or all of 77 Acts from 15 departments passed between 2005 and 2010 have never even been brought into force. I am not entirely surprised about this because I remember how departments, Ministers and senior civil servants saw legislation as a way of demonstrating their importance, so they fought hard for their place in the gracious Speech. I have to say that it was also a very convenient way of occupying the excessive number of Ministers that most departments have.
If we are to balance this continuous pressure for more legislation, we urgently need a process for ensuring that the Government have to explain the purpose and the necessity of any new Bill. They have to set out for examination the likely benefits, as well as the costs and risks, and indicate whether real, reasonable consultation has taken place with those who are affected. As yet, we have no such system. We have committees to scrutinise statutory instruments but we have no similar scrutiny of primary legislation before it reaches the Floor of this House. That is why one of the key recommendations of the Leader’s Group on working practices was to establish a legislative standards committee. We have not yet implemented that, which I assume means that we are relaxed about spending huge amounts of our time debating legislation which will not even be implemented.
We seem similarly relaxed about the impact of legislation which has been implemented, because Parliament has little effective post-legislative scrutiny in place. In the other place, departmental Select Committees rarely, in all honesty, find time for rigorous post-legislative scrutiny, while in this House, although we have recently agreed to carry out one post-legislative review in this Session—of course, I welcome that—this again falls some way short of the recommendations of the Leader’s review and hardly represents a firm commitment to the rigorous scrutiny we need if we are to learn the lessons of success and failure.
The problems do not end there. As other noble Lords have said, in this House we often—even in my time—have had cause to express disappointment at the quality of legislative scrutiny in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, remarked on this earlier. Programming arrangements mean that the Executive are often not held adequately to account, which means that draft legislation reaches this House in poor order. I have been shocked at the quality of some Bills which have come to this House during the past two years. Of course we take pride—justifiably, I think—in the quality of scrutiny in this House and many Bills have certainly been significantly improved as a result, but we also saw in the previous Session many examples of how reasoned amendments made in this House received very scant attention when referred back to the other place. The fact is that the balance of power has shifted away from Parliament and towards the Executive, in a way that is not healthy for parliamentary democracy and should now be addressed. Surely there can be no more urgent or important issue than that in a parliamentary democracy.
I could cite other issues which should give us cause for concern. For example, there is the continued relative lack of pre-legislative scrutiny. I welcome the increased number of draft Bills in this Session, for whatever reason, but pre-legislative scrutiny is not something to which we generally feel committed. There is the failure properly to engage interest groups and expertise beyond Parliament. I might even refer to the complete failure to codify, or even describe, the key constitutional relationship between central and local government.
Yet, in the face of these shortcomings, we prefer to debate at great length whether we should change the composition of the House. As has been said already, the public have shown themselves to have little interest in that. If we look, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, did earlier, at the latest audit of political engagement from the Hansard Society, we see the consequences of our failure to address the other issues that I have referred to. I make no apology for touching on those findings again. Less than one-quarter of the public thinks that the system of governing works reasonably well in this country. Only 49% agree that the issues that are debated and decided in Parliament have relevance to their lives. Only 38% agree that the Government are held to account by Parliament, and only 30% agree that Parliament does enough to encourage public interest and involvement in politics. Those results are devastating, and in the face of those devastating results we might just ask ourselves whether further lengthy debates about the future composition of this House will reverse those trends better than us showing signs that we are committed to genuine and radical reform of the way in which we and the whole of Parliament operate.
My view is that further debate will do further damage to the reputation of this House and of Parliament, but I am convinced that it will also further delay the necessary reforms that I and other noble Lords have referred to. Surely this is the time to withdraw this unwelcome Bill and commit ourselves to reforming Parliament in a way that the public will understand and recognise.
Social Policy
Lord Bichard Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bichard
My Lords, first, I add my voice to the many justified congratulations that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, has already received on his maiden speech. As someone who made his own maiden speech more recently than most in this Chamber, I think that I can probably share more than most the sense of euphoria and sheer relief that he is probably feeling at the moment. We all look forward to working with him—I certainly do—and it was good to hear the passion that he brought to the subject.
In my maiden speech, I drew attention to my belief that our public services need to be radically reformed if we are to provide better services at less cost, which is the challenge that we face not just in the next year but probably for the next decade. As part of that reform, I suggested that the public sector needs to regard civil society as a genuine partner in the development of social policy, so I, too, am delighted to be able to return to this issue so quickly, courtesy of the debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, and hugely encouraged by what I have heard today.
At the moment, the reality is that civil society in all its organised forms is sometimes seen by government, national and local, as a convenient agent for delivering pre-defined policy—convenient sometimes, it must be said, because it is easier to remove the resource from civil society than from the statutory sector and easier sometimes to expect civil society to deliver with less resources than the statutory sector would have needed. It is far less frequently seen as a partner in the development of policy at an early stage. That is where I would like to intervene in this debate. The lack of involvement of civil society at an early stage is regrettable for several reasons. First, civil society has, over time, been responsible for many important social policy innovations. I think of restorative justice as an important current example. At a time when we need innovative thinking perhaps more than ever before, the statutory sector should see the value of involving civil society, the voluntary sector and their representatives in the co-design of policy, not just in its later delivery.
That involvement is important also because those active in civil society are usually closer to local communities than the statutory sector, much more able to identify early the developing issues which need to be addressed, sometimes by Government. They are also much more likely to be able to identify first the problems which existing policy is creating, and therefore the need for legislative or regulatory adjustment. Let us not forget that they are often the first to identify unnecessary expenditure—waste—and deserve to be listened to for that reason as well.
Those active in civil society are also in a better position than most to see people's problems in the round and to understand the need for them to be addressed not in departmental silos, which still too often exist, but in a coherent way, with policies built around clients and their needs, not around the needs and priorities of departments and local authorities. We know that too many families in this country are receiving support from five, six or seven different statutory agencies. We need to involve civil society in bringing some sense to that problem, highlighting it and ensuring that it is tackled. Finally—and perhaps this has not been mentioned tonight—civil society can also play an important part in winning the support of individuals, communities and citizens for new policy if they have an understanding of why a policy is thought necessary and if they have been involved—perhaps played a part—in its design.
For all these reasons, not involving civil society in early policy discussions is a missed opportunity. The question therefore is: why are such partnerships still too rare? What can we do to change that? There are several reasons why they are too rare. Perhaps one is that in the recent past we have sometimes rushed to policy. We have left ourselves too little time to allow relevant interests to be involved and to hear different voices and voices closer to our various communities. Perhaps we should think about whether a more considered approach to policy would be timely, an approach based more on available evidence and diverse voices than on dogma.
Perhaps there are concerns from the statutory sector on occasions about whether confidentiality, where necessary, will be respected if civil society and the voluntary sector are involved in early-stage discussions. That was an argument put to me when I was leading a large statutory-sector organisation as chief executive of the Benefits Agency and when I was a Permanent Secretary. My experience was that the voluntary sector understood the benefits of being involved at an early stage and was loath to abuse that and, consequently, to lose future opportunities to influence policy development. I found that, even in difficult situations, if it was trusted, the voluntary sector would respond to that trust. There is a tendency for those of us who spend a long time working in government to be too secretive, too often. Perhaps we should be more open. We should open up the policy development process a good deal more than we have in the recent past. Sometimes, regrettably, there has also been a certain arrogance at play within the statutory sector. There has been a sense that somehow civil society and its representatives were less able. When I chaired quite large major charitable organisations, I sensed that to be the case. Government departments seemed to know that they knew best.
The most important question, which has already been raised once or twice in this debate, is: what can we now do to ensure the development of a relationship that is built upon respect, trust and partnership? I shall offer three or four very practical—they could be thought trivial—examples of what could be done. I have deliberately chosen practical, low-key developments. First, let us have more opportunities and more encouragement for the best civil servants to spend significant time—not a day or a week—working in civil society so that they understand better the challenges of local communities and the organisations that are closest to them. Let us make more opportunities for those active in civil society to spend some time in government to influence the thinking and understand its workings so that they are in a better position to carry on influencing that thinking. When we review departments in future, let us pay more attention to their capacity to work in partnership with civil society and to the results of their attempts to do that. Let us continue to encourage civil servants, senior as well as junior, to offer themselves as volunteers in their communities. In fairness, a great deal of that already happens. But it really does need to be recognised and valued by senior managers. It might even be right to take into account that kind of activity when we are thinking about promotion of civil servants.
Those are just some very basic, practical things that we can do. I offer them because we can agree here that this partnership between government and civil society will make for better policy. We can encourage it. We can indulge in the rhetoric that we are all very good at. But rhetoric and encouragement will not alone make it happen. We need to find practical ways of making it the reality that it is not yet.
If we are going to change the balance between the power of the state and the people, which most of us have been saying today we want to do, then it is a time for practical working. It is a time for us to take action; and it really is quite urgent, because the challenges that we face as a society demand that change of balance.