Overly cautious, hidebound by process, blocking the path to progress.
So said Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer as he voiced frustration over public bodies’ collective process problem which he says obstructs the government’s growth ambitions.
His address in Hull last Thursday highlighted familiar complaints about a lumbering state, which play out more vividly in American politics.
Bits of government – notably the quangos* – don’t work together well, or quickly enough, it’s claimed. There’s too much duplication, with comms teams coming in for special mention. Organisations announce endless, repeated consultations which masquerade as action. And politics finds itself in a ‘defensive crouch’, ducking big decisions.
All this while housing and energy costs rocket, patients wait for hospital treatment and living standards slide.
Those sentiments underpinned his headline-grabbing pledge to slash bureaucracy by abolishing the body set up to run the NHS in England.
I think you get more from listening to a speech as it’s given than you do from reading the pre-briefed, slanted headlines. You can catch it here.
The points about regulation chime at least in part with complaints by Liz Truss – remember her? – about red tape strangling growth. Tanking the economy with a recklessly disastrous mini budget didn’t help either, in fairness. But here we are today, with process in the firing line.
As someone who worked for a quango in a comms team and has run a few consultations, I feel drawn to offer thoughts on the speech and where it leaves us. There’s loads more to say on collaboration, culture and why good regulation matters.
If you want another take on how we got here, The Economist’s leader from January sets it out well.
For now, here are three things that struck me about a speech that, let’s not forget, came from a Labour Prime Minister less than a year into the job. That he’s speaking in such tones at all is noteworthy.
#1 We’ve sort of been here before
That some in the crowd thought he’d just announced the scrapping of the NHS amused some journalists covering the speech. The reality is more prosaic. Abolishing NHS England heralds a return to the set-up we had before the last overhaul in 2012.
It’s not the first time that the government called a blitz on public bodies, and I remember when it last happened. I worked for the Homes and Communities Agency in 2010 in the last days of Gordon Brown’s government, just before the coalition’s ‘bonfire of the quangos’.
Regional Development Agencies, government offices and the social housing regulator were amongst more than 300 organisations set ablaze. The HCA itself underwent a massive reorganisation, which saw about a third of its staff leave with pay in lieu of notice and redundancy packages.
The total cost of this bonfire was more than £800m, which brings into question any claims that this will help to save serious money.
After that, Homes England replaced the HCA in 2018 and today employs a similar number of people to those on the books in 2010.
Far from resisting change, many working for these bodies will say it’s a constant feature – particularly when the minister you’re working for changes every few months.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. But with living standards flat for the best part of two decades, it’s not the sort of change that matters to most people.
Which leads me to my second point.
#2 Reform isn’t an end in itself
Stripping back process that blocks change is one thing. Moving from reform to change that impacts people’s lives is the hard bit.
I’m talking about affordable housing, transport that works and cheaper, greener energy.
We’ve seen this play out discussions around the Devolution White paper, which I wrote about before Christmas.
The policy document proposes abolishing 164 district councils, merging them into larger unitary authorities covering populations of some 500,000 people. In addition, the white paper proposes larger mayoral authorities with responsibility for housing, planning and transport for parts of England which don’t already have them.
With reorganisations in the mix, we’re already seeing some council decisions put on hold.
This process is likely to take a couple of years and comes alongside a blizzard of other measures, around planning and infrastructure, tenants’ rights and funding.
I support the direction we’re heading in, while hoping we move beyond talking about restructures to focusing on proper impact.
Which poses a question about purpose and why we need this change.
#3 We must aim for better, not just faster
Pretty much anyone connected to the planning system agrees it needs reforming.
I see this sentiment aired across reports and posts on LinkedIn every day. It came through in research we did last year highlighting five big challenges facing the built environment.
But while cutting delays is important, it won’t fix a big issue facing the sector: the public doesn’t trust it.
Many people feel ill-served by a process that they believe does things to them, rather than with their input.
Despite endless consultations, the consequences of crappy development – poor infrastructure, no public transport, badly designed places – are writ large across the country.
So, while it’s right to welcome reform, I hope also we collectively raise our sights above delivering at pace and focus on creating better places. Affordable, connected, healthy, sustainable, accessible, inclusive. These things matter as much as hitting a target, however important that is.
If we miss this opportunity to do better, little by little, trust takes another hit and opposition deepens. And we all lose something in the process.
Why good engagement still matters
I agree with Starmer’s comments about consultation as a knee jerk response to calls for action, while seeing tension between wanting to move quickly and doing things properly.
But the public sector isn’t a business, however commercial and innovative people like Elon Musk want it to be. It can’t afford to ‘fail fast’ when livelihoods and lives are at stake. Change and cuts have also battered it over the last 15 years. Ditching a public body, however newsworthy, won’t address that reality.
That takes clarity about direction, honesty about the timescale, and relentless drive to make it happen. It also needs commitment to meaningful, continuous engagement that involves the public.
I’m inspired by my conversations with clients, partners and other businesses who strive to achieve this.
With government departments rooted in London (a post for another day), its arm’s-length bodies have a key role in delivering change with us.
Faster delivery matters. So does the kind of growth we want to create.
If we don’t get this next step right, the public won’t appreciate it. And there’s a more troubling version of Reform waiting on the other side.
* Quango stands for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation.