- Public, Wednesday 18 November 2009 19.09 GMT
The Canadian Parliament has carried out a review of the role of central government with surprising results
In future, government departments will have to do more with the same resources or less. In the short term, the recession and the vast financial contributions made to the banks have contributed to this. But there are also other longer-term trends which are impacting on government spending.
These include an ageing population demanding more services, the need to adapt infrastructure to cope with climate change and the requirement to improve the skills of Britain's workers.
When faced with a financial crunch, some countries have carried out complete reviews of what central government should, and should not, do. One participant in the Guardian's recent roundtable discussion – sponsored by Capgemini – on the government department of the future said that Canada had used such a review to halve transport spending, while actually increasing budgets in some other areas.
But closing services outright is politically dangerous. One participant, whose organisation had recently cut a significant proportion of its posts and pared back services, had received up to 10 hate mails a day for doing so: "The level of vitriol from the public staggered me." This was for a service it would be hard to describe as vital to people's lives.
The speaker added that sharing data on individuals across government could improve efficiency – but politicians are not brave enough. However, retailers' strategy of researching then segmenting customers into groups, then offering a tailored service based on segment, is an option which the organisation has started to exploit.
Segmentation has been used elsewhere in government. One London borough with a large number of poorly skilled people found that some unemployed women were well educated but could not find childcare – thus suggesting a way to help that group.
Others were recent immigrants from countries where women did not tend to work, and therefore needed different types of assistance.
The technique could also help in avoiding general targets that manage to please almost no one. One speaker said that the requirement that GPs see patients within 48 hours pleased neither the people with urgent conditions who wanted to see a doctor the same day, nor those with chronic complaints who were happy to book days in advance.
However, several participants had severe doubts about segmentation. "The drive to personalised services is right in some cases, but we can't provide it across government," said one. For example, similar standards of education have to be available to all, otherwise voters will rightly complain that their children's education is being neglected at the expense of others.
Highly problematic
Britain's public sector has been built on providing uniform "one-size-fits-all" services for very good reasons, another argued: it is fair. Corrupt countries provide individuals with highly personalised services – based on whether or not they are in favour. The idea that tax collection policies should be based on customer segmentation, rather than purely on how much they earn, is highly problematic: "If you begin to lose that, you begin to lose trust in public services."
Furthermore, companies can place potential customers into segments which they decide they will not serve at all, because it would not be profitable. "I work in the public service for a reason – I want to serve the public, all of them," one speaker said.
If segmentation and personalisation have only limited capacity to improve efficiency, how about devolving power? The United Kingdom is one of the most centralised states in the developed world, speakers agreed.
One participant noted that the United States leaves the profoundly important decision of whether or not to execute criminals up to its constituent states. Another pointed out that Denmark's local authorities collect that nation's taxes, although the rules are set nationally.
Several speakers felt that local authorities sometimes tend to be micromanaged by government departments. One speaker, referring to some national responsibilities that will shortly be transferred to councils, paraphrased ministers' attitude as being "they will do what they are told, won't they?"
But giving local authorities significant responsibilities for the state sector in their areas could make government more manageable. Some central departments employ hundreds of thousands of staff dealing with tens of millions of clients, a scale with which the best companies struggle to deal.
Some speakers argued that councils already tend to be more efficient; both through rate capping and highly visible taxes, many have already made big structural changes to save money, unlike many Whitehall departments.
Furthermore, local authorities can provide a politically acceptable way of tailoring services, by adapting national policies to local conditions. Councils are also a good place for innovation: it is better to experiment with new ideas on a small scale in one locality, allow them to develop for a few years and slowly introduce them more widely if they work, than introduce them quickly across the country before they have matured.
One participant sounded a warning note, saying that some areas have low aspirations which need to be challenged: "They have been used to relying on a lot of local low-skilled jobs," such as a single large industrial employer. That can lead to few people going to university, and disaster if the big employer closes. "There is a level of complacency at the local level," at least at some local authorities.
But one participant argued that keeping local authorities on a tight lead undermines them. "One of the enemies of strong leadership is the partnership soup in which we constantly swim," the speaker said.
"What would be of assistance would be some genuine autonomy for local government."
"There are very few areas, apart from defence, that you could say, 'that has to be done by central government'," observed another participant.
Some progress is being made through the Total Place programme, which sees government departments and councils brokering agreements on local solutions for an area's problems. Four of the current projects focus on reducing crime, and this may include the option of keeping short-stay prisoners in local prisons. Keeping them close to their families and prospective jobs should help greatly with their rehabilitation.
But such innovation, vital though it may be to the future of government, can raise the ire of some newspapers. Anything that seems to involve treating prisoners well, even if it looks likely to reduce recidivism, or sending fewer to prison in the first place, despite the huge cost of accommodation, is likely to generate an attack to which ministers feel obliged to respond.
Others felt the financial crisis will provide a strong justification for changing the way things work. "It's possible to imagine that, given we have got to take 20% out [of budgets] over the next three or four years, that we, politically and managerially, will be a bit bolder," said one speaker.
In general, the participants felt that the government department of the future should be braver in experimenting, may well devolve some responsibilities to local government and will consider private sector techniques such as market segmentation – although it should not introduce these slavishly.
Transparency
Finally, it should be less secretive and more accountable. "We often talk about citizens as people we do things to, or deliver things for," rather than as people who increasingly want to help form policies, complained one participant. Ignoring this trend would be akin to a group of Luddites having a roundtable meeting at the start of the industrial revolution without discussing powered looms.
This secrecy is partly caused by the constitutional convention which says that departments are merely the instruments of ministers. "I thought when I went from local to central government, it would be the same just bigger, but it isn't," said one participant.
"I don't work for parliament in the way I used to work for the council." Working directly for an individual minister, rather than for parliament means civil servants feel they are "completely invisible" and that can lead to poor value for money, because decisions are taken behind closed doors.
Taking civil servants away from secretaries of state and giving them to parliament would be the crucial constitutional step. "Then we would find out whether we really are bold. We think we are bold and we have a tendency to blame politicians for not being bold. But that's because we're never held to account, because we're not constitutionally able to be."
Another speaker added that it made no sense for politicians and the press to threaten civil servants with what they will do to them after the next election. "How crazy is it going to be to attempt the biggest transformation of British public service delivery in 150 years, while effectively driving out half of the people who might want to lead it?"
• For the report on Department of the Future, click here
