A solution – PART 2:
In part one we established that these socio economic benchmarks do not was to be used to politicise across devolved policy – rather to lift and resource throughout the United Kingdom
Devolved Administrations, although primarily accountable to the electorate in their own Nation, do possess a wider accountability to the electorate in the three other Nations. A core, practical strength of our Union is the pooling of resources and the multiplicative effect that has on the ability of central government to raise revenue more powerfully and plentifully before distributing those resources. Therefore a voter in Wales has the right to know how their resources are being used, and to what level of success (albeit for them to judge) in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is any democratically elected government’s responsibility to furnish a voter with that information and a comparable set of measurements.
Extending on the health focused example presented in Challenges, a key recommendation, from The Health Foundation and Nuffield Trust study into the comparison of the health systems across the UK, is simply that that there should be better comparative data. The report cites key areas where comparison is problematic, including the critical statistic of hospital waiting times, due to changes over time in the targets or standards set by the different governments – an aspect that could be mitigated through standardised metrics assigned by an independent body. The report similarly argues that, despite some opportunity cost related to collection, the benefits of collecting data are that, through benchmarking, each country can learn how to both make changes that lead to care of higher quality without increasing costs, and enable savings to be made without impairing quality, for example, by better service integration. The report goes on to cite a range of specific metrics for comparable data collection including in relation to hospital waiting times as the percentages waiting more than 18 weeks from referral by a GP to admission as an inpatient, or treatment as a day-case. The final two conclusions of the report argue in that comparative data allows, as we have discussed, for proper electoral accountability and how a larger set of more consistent data can properly inform detailed, micro studies to identify what the increasing differences in system policy mean for patients’ and carers’ experiences of health care. Furthermore there is an appetite at the institutional level for such comparable data,, indeed the National Audit Office (NAO), in a 2014 report, offered the following recommendations for comparability of data (specifically with regards to health):
- Confirm that there is a desire at a national level to compare performance with a view to learning lessons and identifying good practice
- Agree the specific indicators that would provide the most insight
- Establish what data would be required to make comparisons, and identify how to collect and collate these data proportionately and cost-effectively
- Use the comparisons as a starting point to draw out key factors that drive performance and value for money
These, high level, recommendations from the NAO can be extended across the arena of public service provision and form a useful starting point. Although the first recommendation refers specifically to the health services, finding the political will and trust across Devolved Administrations and the UK Government, it is acknowledged, would prove the most challenging obstacle to overcome politically. Indeed There have been recommendations to produce comparable data as far back as 2009, when a House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula criticised the Treasury for only publish[ing] limited data about devolved public spending [with] no time series showing how expenditure has changed as a result of spending decisions made in previous years or spending reviews. As a result, it [was] difficult to establish comparable levels of spending in England for devolved functions as they are different in each part of the UK. It is noteworthy that this report was published in 2009, when the political map of the UK was very different, that is to say there has been, at the very least, a political acknowledgement that a the use of comparable data has merit.
What Challenges will it address?
This explicitly addresses the challenge of Benchmarking. Building a coherent system of comparable data across the Home Nations, overseen by a national, non-governmental organisation, would furnish the UK Government, and Devolved Administrations with the necessary tools for debate, negotiation, improved needs-based resourcing and sharing of best practice. The application and detailed use of such information would be the decision of political leaders, and they would have to account for such actions they took, but equipping them with the objective data and the ability to benchmark, ultimately strengthens one of the very core premises of devolution – accountability.
