Des McNulty: Reform of public services is being ignored

In his article in The Scotsman last week, Stephen Osborne rightly said our public services face huge challenges. They need to be more user-led, more innovative, more effective. But his argument that the quality of public services in Scotland can only be enhanced by a “genuinely Scottish” system that links funding and delivery, whether through independence or devo-max, must be questioned.

Last year the Christie Commission stressed the need for urgent action. The Scottish Government’s response to the Commission’s recommendations has been to avoid doing anything controversial. The big decisions about how public services should be provided have been put on hold, pending the referendum. Mr Osborne’s suggestion is that public service reform should be at the heart of debates over the next two years, but this just looks like more delay.

Our current funding regime is not a reason for inaction. True, our spend is not directly linked to tax-raising, but Westminster has very little say over the way the Scottish Government uses its £35 billion budget. The Scottish Government already has the powers – and the tools – to implement much-needed reform. Last week Nicola Sturgeon said Scotland was “to all intents and purposes independent when it comes to running our schools, hospitals, police and much else besides”. So it is open to ministers in Scotland to initiate almost any reform they wish in the management and delivery of Scottish public services.

For all devolved public services, the Scottish Government has control of both decision-making and budgets – exactly what Mr Osborne says is required for successful integration. If, as Ms Sturgeon claims, “we have the power to decide how to structure and deliver our own health service, to best meet the needs of the people who depend on it”, what is there to stop Scotland being innovative in reconfiguring its public services now in response to changing social and economic needs?

In practice, it has not been the existence of a UK government at Westminster that has prevented public service reforms in Scotland, but the unwillingness and/or inability of successive governments in Edinburgh to take the reform agenda forward.

Ms Sturgeon correctly argues that, under devolution, Scotland has been protected from policies that offended our sense of decency and social cohesion. There is little support in Scotland for the “marketisation” of public services. But some public service reforms introduced in England under the last Labour government have delivered improvements that either have not been matched in Scotland or, in the case of waiting times reductions, took longer to achieve. In education and health, our costs of provision are higher and outcomes are no better or poorer than south of the Border.

The failure to devise and implement radical policies of our own is surely linked to what Mr Osborne identifies as a positive: a “collaborative culture” of public service delivery in Scotland through partnerships based on “principles of social justice and cohesion at odds with the more competitive models of the UK government”. A partnership approach is, of course, a positive but it means that proposals for change can easily be presented as a challenge to the ethos of public services. Politicians are thus wary of making enemies by championing reform. Lack of leadership in the face of difficult choices is a much more significant obstacle than any lack of powers or shackles imposed by Westminster.

At the last Holyrood election both Labour and the SNP promised the impossible of “protecting” services while freezing council tax – for Labour with no internal debate. Populist policies, such as free personal care, free higher education and free bus travel for everyone over 60, are unsustainable in the long term unless we are willing to raise taxes. But we prefer to ignore the arithmetic, and ignore the tax-raising powers we already have, while political argument centres on when the constitutional referendum should take place and how many questions should be on the ballot paper.

The Christie Commission concluded that our public services are stretched to breaking point and in desperate need of overhaul. Scotland has the same structures and more or less the same arrangements for public service provision that it had 12 years ago. Despite having a parliamentary majority, this government, like its predecessors, is sitting on its hands over reform of council and health services requiring an annual spend of £20bn.

Mr Osborne suggests that a “genuinely Scottish” system would make a difference and that “an independent Scotland would be able to privilege Scottish citizens and communities in designing their services and commit the finances necessary to make these a reality”. He believes independence or devo-max will be the catalyst for change, forcing politicians and the public to confront dilemmas we have preferred to avoid.

But what evidence is there to suggest that independence would bring a public appetite for public service reform or support for the higher levels of taxation that would support quality public services? Voters may instead expect constitutional change to remove current challenges.

The Christie Commission saw public service reform as an urgent task for the devolved Scottish Government. Postponing reform won’t make the problems go away or easier to solve. It will just allow us to avoid having to face up to reality a little while longer.

• Des McNulty is a former Labour MSP and a former Scottish Executive minister