 |
| Our Top Table for responding to the Covid 19 pandemic |
The critique of the UK government's response to the Covid pandemic has gathered a fact shaming momentum as we discover on a daily basis about the delays, the lack of tranparency, the abusing of statistics and failure to act in a timely and appropriate way. The government is still trying to convince a now sceptical public that we have world beating systems, scientists, and solutions. True, we are world beating in terms of the number of deaths, the lack of PPE, testing and tracing. Comparisons with New Zealand, Vietnam and Taiwan, not to mention most developing countries have made us a laughing stock of our former EU partners. The government meanwhile responds by suggesting that there will be a comprehensive inquiry once this is over. It is ever thus, and we know from the still gestating Grenfell Inquiry, all the reports over the past dozen or so years on Community Care and Racial Discrimination that after a lengthy period of government prevarication that the outcomes of these inquiries are seldom worth a hill of beans.
Five weeks ago during a Zoom catch up with four former colleagues we were lamenting the litany of mistakes made by the government in responding to the Covid pandemic. We had all had extensive experience of coping with emergencies and we decided to put together a paper for publication. The way these things work it took a couple of weeks before we had a final paper and already some of the arguments we were making had been picked up by various journalists and practitioners and published in the press or been expounded on TV programmes. The journal that normally publishes our papers has a long lead time, and in a fast moving crisis like Covid, the article was passing its read by date and attempts to have it published elsewhere have so far not materialised. I have copied it below for posterity.
In what has seemed like the blink of an eye, our public services and the people who work in them, public administration and governments have had to radically re-orientate themselves and their business to face up to the threat to life and society presented by the coronavirus and COVID19. In recent weeks, the Westminster Government and the devolved administrations have had to take entirely unprecedented steps to fundamentally reshape social and personal behaviour for the good of all, to shore up the economy,and protect economic well being of individuals.
And in the midst of all of this, the preparedness, the speed of response, and the capability of central government has been severely tested, and has been found wanting by many professionals, academics and citizens.
So what does this tell us about the way we run and govern our public services and administration? If one of the most signal responsibilities of government is to protect its citizens and keep them safe, what has gone wrong? And in the particular case of this emergency, after so many years of planning, training, and investment in assessing and mitigating risks of exactly this nature, how could our response have been so stuttering and flat-footed?
We believe much has to do with the relationship that has developed between central government and the rest of the public polity, and the level of regard and mutuality which exists in that relationship. We believe that ironically, in the years since devolution and the creation of governments and administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK and its constituent nations have become more centralised in decision-making and engagement, not less so. We believe that the huge potential of devolution, of dispersing power and widening engagement across geographies and into communities, has not been recognised or realised, and our system of governance is much weaker for that reason.
It is true that strong central control in government can work, but history shows that it very rarely flourishes. Ultimately, the truth is, in the words of WB Yeats in his poem ‘The Second Coming’, the centre cannot hold, and things will fall apart. In our current emergency, we have seen that the initial UK consensus on fighting COVID is already fracturing. On the easing of lockdown restrictions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now on different paths to the policy being followed in England. New points of difference are emerging on the re-opening of schools, and they will occur again on the issue of social gatherings, and the opening up of workplaces and entertainment venues.
But this should not be seen as a threat. Public policy decisions should reflect local priorities, characteristics and circumstances, and the devolved administrations are well placed to make these decisions.
Questions may be asked about the adequacy, or indeed, the existence, of a coherent, clear UK post-COVID response strategy. But the question is not whether the devolved administrations are right to chart their own paths: the question should be how can that principle of devolution be further extended - the so-called ‘subsidiarity’ principle - to local government. Not only would this allow the tailoring of policy and delivery to meet local circumstances, but a unified, strategic alliance of UK, devolved and local governments would offer up expertise, a labour resource, and a knowledge exchange far in excess of that which the UK Government can offer by going it alone.
Above all, the time is right for this to happen. We are about to enter the recovery phase of the pandemic. Local authorities are well used to being called upon to take the lead in recovery after emergency events. In the management of most serious emergencies, there comes a time when responsibility is handed over from the Police services to local authorities, so the they can coordinate and deal with the tasks of repair, rebuilding and healing.
Local authorities take the lead working with local health authorities, local housing associations, local businesses, local communities and voluntary organisations. They are better placed to solve the multitude of problems that occur uniquely in different areas – providing local solutions to local problems, and mobilising local communities. We have learned time and time again that during the recovery phase, local planning and local delivery solves local problems, providing as it does scope for local innovations which centrally determined alternatives and directives cannot.
Preparations should be being made now for the assumption of local control of the recovery phase, led by local authorities and their local partner organisations. This means making sure that these public sector and voluntary bodies are properly resourced to do the job. It mean local authorities being charged to engage with communities, and help them to build their resilience and readiness to deal with what comes next in restoring post-COVID world that may be very different to our previous experiences.
In Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, our politicians need to recognise and acknowledge the power of local diversity and local initiative. They need to focus on setting out a clear national strategy. They need to relinquish some control, and allow local initiative and real operational experience to build a safe, post-COVID world on the basis of good knowledge and local evidence. But much needs to change to allow this to happen. We are advocating that action needs to be taken in the following areas:
· There needs to be a strong, clear UK strategy to provide a context and framework for regional and local action plans;
· New relationships are required between public bodies and local communities, where communities are enabled to take responsibility for services at the most local level;
· New functional relationships are needed with local businesses, which recognise the financial investment and human resources that businesses have in local and regional economies, and which change decision-making processes accordingly;
· Within public bodies, new, flexible relationships are needed with staff, so that staff can move freely from agency to agency, and from agencies into communities lending their technical skills and expertise helping to create stronger and more able community structures, and from communities into agencies and back again, acquiring knowledge and experience which can be applied in community advocate and activist roles;
· Revamped democratic structures and processes are required, based on a more participative principle of democracy, including e-democracy, and an openness to engagement through activism and partnership;
· The expectations of central government and its institutions need to change: the proliferation of local solutions, locally designed and commissioned, and inevitably diverse, needs to be encouraged and facilitated, not resisted.
In the final analysis, as we look towards what a post-COVID society might look like, and how it will have to behave, we need to put our trust in cooperation and collaboration. Our collective experience of in the public service tells us that, with the right support, we can ultimately always depend on the irrepressible good sense, good intentions and good humour of local communities throughout the land. If we forget this, we are lost. The secret will be to respect and trust them, and to give them the tools, resources and confidence they need to do the job.
Five weeks ago during a Zoom catch up with four former colleagues we were lamenting the litany of mistakes made by the government in responding to the Covid pandemic. We had all had extensive experience of coping with emergencies and we decided to put together a paper for publication. The way these things work it took a couple of weeks before we had a final paper and already some of the arguments we were making had been picked up by various journalists and practitioners and published in the press or been expounded on TV programmes. The journal that normally publishes our papers has a long lead time, and in a fast moving crisis like Covid, the article was passing its read by date and attempts to have it published elsewhere have so far not materialised. I have copied it below for posterity.
‘Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold’
Governance in the post-COVID world
In what has seemed like the blink of an eye, our public services and the people who work in them, public administration and governments have had to radically re-orientate themselves and their business to face up to the threat to life and society presented by the coronavirus and COVID19. In recent weeks, the Westminster Government and the devolved administrations have had to take entirely unprecedented steps to fundamentally reshape social and personal behaviour for the good of all, to shore up the economy,and protect economic well being of individuals.
And in the midst of all of this, the preparedness, the speed of response, and the capability of central government has been severely tested, and has been found wanting by many professionals, academics and citizens.
So what does this tell us about the way we run and govern our public services and administration? If one of the most signal responsibilities of government is to protect its citizens and keep them safe, what has gone wrong? And in the particular case of this emergency, after so many years of planning, training, and investment in assessing and mitigating risks of exactly this nature, how could our response have been so stuttering and flat-footed?
We believe much has to do with the relationship that has developed between central government and the rest of the public polity, and the level of regard and mutuality which exists in that relationship. We believe that ironically, in the years since devolution and the creation of governments and administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK and its constituent nations have become more centralised in decision-making and engagement, not less so. We believe that the huge potential of devolution, of dispersing power and widening engagement across geographies and into communities, has not been recognised or realised, and our system of governance is much weaker for that reason.
It is true that strong central control in government can work, but history shows that it very rarely flourishes. Ultimately, the truth is, in the words of WB Yeats in his poem ‘The Second Coming’, the centre cannot hold, and things will fall apart. In our current emergency, we have seen that the initial UK consensus on fighting COVID is already fracturing. On the easing of lockdown restrictions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now on different paths to the policy being followed in England. New points of difference are emerging on the re-opening of schools, and they will occur again on the issue of social gatherings, and the opening up of workplaces and entertainment venues.
But this should not be seen as a threat. Public policy decisions should reflect local priorities, characteristics and circumstances, and the devolved administrations are well placed to make these decisions.
Questions may be asked about the adequacy, or indeed, the existence, of a coherent, clear UK post-COVID response strategy. But the question is not whether the devolved administrations are right to chart their own paths: the question should be how can that principle of devolution be further extended - the so-called ‘subsidiarity’ principle - to local government. Not only would this allow the tailoring of policy and delivery to meet local circumstances, but a unified, strategic alliance of UK, devolved and local governments would offer up expertise, a labour resource, and a knowledge exchange far in excess of that which the UK Government can offer by going it alone.
Above all, the time is right for this to happen. We are about to enter the recovery phase of the pandemic. Local authorities are well used to being called upon to take the lead in recovery after emergency events. In the management of most serious emergencies, there comes a time when responsibility is handed over from the Police services to local authorities, so the they can coordinate and deal with the tasks of repair, rebuilding and healing.
Local authorities take the lead working with local health authorities, local housing associations, local businesses, local communities and voluntary organisations. They are better placed to solve the multitude of problems that occur uniquely in different areas – providing local solutions to local problems, and mobilising local communities. We have learned time and time again that during the recovery phase, local planning and local delivery solves local problems, providing as it does scope for local innovations which centrally determined alternatives and directives cannot.
Preparations should be being made now for the assumption of local control of the recovery phase, led by local authorities and their local partner organisations. This means making sure that these public sector and voluntary bodies are properly resourced to do the job. It mean local authorities being charged to engage with communities, and help them to build their resilience and readiness to deal with what comes next in restoring post-COVID world that may be very different to our previous experiences.
In Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, our politicians need to recognise and acknowledge the power of local diversity and local initiative. They need to focus on setting out a clear national strategy. They need to relinquish some control, and allow local initiative and real operational experience to build a safe, post-COVID world on the basis of good knowledge and local evidence. But much needs to change to allow this to happen. We are advocating that action needs to be taken in the following areas:
· There needs to be a strong, clear UK strategy to provide a context and framework for regional and local action plans;
· New relationships are required between public bodies and local communities, where communities are enabled to take responsibility for services at the most local level;
· New functional relationships are needed with local businesses, which recognise the financial investment and human resources that businesses have in local and regional economies, and which change decision-making processes accordingly;
· Within public bodies, new, flexible relationships are needed with staff, so that staff can move freely from agency to agency, and from agencies into communities lending their technical skills and expertise helping to create stronger and more able community structures, and from communities into agencies and back again, acquiring knowledge and experience which can be applied in community advocate and activist roles;
· Revamped democratic structures and processes are required, based on a more participative principle of democracy, including e-democracy, and an openness to engagement through activism and partnership;
· The expectations of central government and its institutions need to change: the proliferation of local solutions, locally designed and commissioned, and inevitably diverse, needs to be encouraged and facilitated, not resisted.
In the final analysis, as we look towards what a post-COVID society might look like, and how it will have to behave, we need to put our trust in cooperation and collaboration. Our collective experience of in the public service tells us that, with the right support, we can ultimately always depend on the irrepressible good sense, good intentions and good humour of local communities throughout the land. If we forget this, we are lost. The secret will be to respect and trust them, and to give them the tools, resources and confidence they need to do the job.
No comments:
Post a Comment
thanks