Public bodies looking to the future

First, a warning from Sir Bob Kerslake – keep focused on delivering for the current government rather than simply prepare for the next. In 2009 many quangos did themselves no favours by too obviously courting potential new ministers. Our new report on pre-election contacts recommends that permanent secretaries work out how to include their arm’s-length bodies in the formal pre-election contacts process. But bodies need to make sure they keep key stakeholders on side – those with few friends find themselves nearer the bonfire as Nick Timmins’s report on the demise of the Audit Commission and the National Policing Improvement Agency shows. Second, there was a general view that continued austerity post-election would bring structural change back onto the agenda – and public bodies would not be exempt. The efficiency measures that had been taken in the first parliament were just the start. Third, the Cabinet Office promised more flexible triennial reviews – fitter for purpose, with a bigger peer review element. There have been complaints about the clunkiness and time consuming nature of the review process – which has resulted in few changes. There were some messages from the chairs too. In a session on public appointments, chairs expressed concern about the impact of the “presumption against renewal” instigated by No.10, which meant that most non-executives thought they could only expect one term – which they thought was reducing the effectiveness of boards and deterring potential candidates – though Andrew Timlin from Hays thought that the calibre of applicants was holding up. One chair thought the onus was on chairs themselves to do proper board appraisals to make clear who was performing and who was not. There were complaints too about the opacity of the appointment process – and the long delay between interview and finding out the outcome which means good candidates can be lost. Clare Salters of the Civil Service Commission pointed to improvements in the numbers of women appointed – and, contrary to popular view, no evidence of “politicisation”. But results on ethnic minority and disabled appointees were still disappointing. Stephen Dingle of the Coal Authority suggested the real need was for diversity of thought process. There seemed to be support for a suggestion of better advance planning for vacancies and also the creation of an “entry level” route which would help candidates without prior board experience. In the final session chairs were confronted by the prospect of what would happen after the Scottish referendum. Former permanent secretary John Elvidge held out the prospect that a Scottish government with more powers would be less different to the Whitehall model – there would be less possibility of alignment around a common national purpose and a government with economic powers would be more interested in playing in the “economic sandpit” and focus less on public services. He thought that a country willing to share the pound and the monarchy would also be willing to act pragmatically on whether to share some regulators – but that the UK government might not be so accommodating. But chairs reflected that those who operated on a UK basis were already experiencing tensions where the Scottish government had a different view from the UK one. We will look at the possible implications for public bodies of whatever happens after the referendum as part of a new project later this year.