Where is the public in public services?

Last updated:31 March 2010

Ed Hammond
Research & Information Manager
Centre for Public Scrutiny

Where is the public in public services? Do the public feel genuinely involved and engaged in the way that services are delivered to them, or are they passive observers, unable to affect things and consequently disengaged from the political process?

This difficult and timely topic was the subject of CfPS’ 7th Annual Debate at the beginning of March in central London. A panel of experts – Gareth Davies from the Audit Commission, Cllr Richard Kemp from the LGA, James Crabtree from the new media organisation mySociety and Tony Wright MP – considered and discussed the issues and ramifications of public trust in public services.

The focus of much of the debate was on the overarching theme of localism. The panel’s view was that enhanced localism, and local decision-making, was vital to enhancing public trust in public services. Devolving decision-making, and accountability, down to local level is, in CfPS’ view, of vital importance in securing public buy-in, and making sure that local people understand and can influence the decisions being made in their name.

But local decision-making will not naturally lead to local involvement in all decisions. There will be areas that many people are less interested in. One of our panellists warned of the potential for a “tyranny of petitions” and the importance of participative and representative forms of democracy needing to coexist in order to ensure that politicians are truly accountable.

The panel and audience spent some time considering how transparency and the freeing of data will help to reconnect people to politics. Some participants felt that there is an assumption made by many that transparency on its own is enough – that publishing a wide variety of information on websites, or through other means, will unleash a horde of “armchair auditors” whose actions, comments and recommendations will then influence decision-makers. Generally speaking it was agreed that this is not the case – a conclusion that CfPS agrees with, having carried out research on this issue. Transparency and accountability go hand in hand, but it is impossible to have one without the other. Just transparency does not change the culture of an organisation, nor does it change the way it makes decisions. Even with huge amounts of data being published, it is still possible for organisations to be entirely unaccountable. Some formal means of investigation is required.

Moreover, it was thought that in many cases the opportunities provided by social networking and social media (on which these moves towards more data freedom are based) are not as significant as some think. A number of participants forcefully stated that their residents and users were, by and large, not IT literate and so unable to engage with public organisations in this way. It is obvious that extreme care needs to be taken to ensure that transparency, when pursued, is meaningful and worthwhile, rather than merely the publication of large amounts of data on a website, which may be difficult for the layman to interrogate. Instead, it is vital for public organisations to use all elements of the media, traditional and modern, to engage with people. 

The final major issues discussed were the need for cultural change and the potential for scrutiny to break down organisational silos. The advent of Total Place is going to make it increasingly difficult for organisations to continue to deliver services in this way, but CfPS agrees that some concrete steps will need to be taken by organisations to bring this cultural change about. Scrutiny can, and should, sit at the heart of this process. It was telling that a number of participants emphasised that silos, departments and organisations didn’t matter to local people, who are just interested in the services they receive being of the highest possible standard. This is a lesson that scrutiny is going to have to take on board to inform the way it works, and the recommendations it makes, in the future.

31 March 2010