The problem
Benchmarking
There exist devolved matters and reserved matters held by the UK Government and overseen by the UK Parliament. Whilst each nation has its own standard setting bodies through which it displays its performance on devolved matters, there exists no coherent, recognised mechanism by which to measure and compare approaches at the UK level.
Standard setting is not an attempt to implement targets to be achieved, that is a matter for governments. The point to highlight is that there is no consistency of measurement of public services across the four nations. Devolution allows for the space to tailor solutions to specific policy areas that are better suited and understood by the devolved legislatures; solutions for reducing crime in Birmingham will not necessarily work in Belfast. It remains well intentioned and, if volume of legislation passed since inception is a useful benchmark for the necessity of success on this front, it is welcome.
However, the lack of coherent standards at the UK level creates a vacuum of understanding between Devolved Administrations and the UK Government, but also between the Devolved Administrations. This lack of understanding can lead to inefficient or inappropriate resourcing of Devolved Administrations from central government. Resourcing for devolved matters does not fully incorporate relative socio-economic needs of each nation, and funding can be subject to short term agreements based on political goals rather than societal needs. It is acknowledged that there have been attempts to address this in recent years however, attempts remains clunky and open to political manipulation. With regards to inappropriateness of resourcing, based on political rather than societal need, the example of the additional £1 billion settlement for Northern Ireland, agreed with the Democratic Unionist Party as part of the confidence and supply agreement reached after the 2017 General Election, was not funded through the traditional Barnett Formula, but negotiated on a bilateral basis. Whilst it is acknowledged that the political arguments for this outcome may have had merit, the allocation of this resource was not wholly based on objective criteria and, given that resources are finite, would have, by definition, led to an imbalance based on political rather than societal need. As a result the lack of a coherent set of UK level benchmarking or standards can undermine one of the key principles for devolution itself, namely increasing democratic accountability and depriving the public of a sense of the truth in how their services are resourced.
On a more practical level, incoherence of evaluation across the UK for key public services can lead to divergence of opportunity. The purpose of establishing benchmarks through which one can measure performance, in any field, is not to guarantee outcomes but rather to provide a frame of reference by which to measure relative performance. Admittedly, there are short comings with this approach not least of which is ex ante decision making based on an ex post basis. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that even the choice of a benchmark is subjective in nature and would be open to political influence, but the principle remains; to enable decision makers, at all levels, to create an environment that is more conducive to increasing opportunity, accountability and competition. Resources cannot be effectively allocated if information, or at the very least a coherent dialogue, based upon common principles, does not exist.
In a comparative study of Home Nations’ public health systems conducted by Sheffield University, on behalf of the Association of the Directors of Public Health, it was established that the adoption of a public health systems framework was a useful heuristic tool for comparison and use in future evaluations given the divergent approaches taken by the Home Nations: it can be evidenced that England, for example has maintained a policy underpinned by a focus on competition, markets and choice [particularly with regards to commissioning services] … moving away from other nations, whose action continues to be more akin to original welfare state principles and more focused on cooperation and participation. Furthermore, the report highlights a ‘systems level’ dialogue is less about judging whether one nation is doing ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than another, and more about cross-country learning from each other as well as the development of robust tools, by use of a broad, multidisciplinary suite of methods for both intervention research and evidence synthesis and away from simple, linear, causal models, to consideration of the ways in which processes and outcomes at all points within a system drive change. In essence the challenge of current practice is that silos create an environment for divergence which may well be appropriate when viewed in isolation, but when view holistically, and most importantly resourced holistically, through the strength of a centrally administered economy, may not be performing to the best standard possible. This is not to suggest that devolved matters be held to a common standard but rather the information to ensure adequate resourcing must be comparable across the four Home Nations in order to make best use of the economy of the UK.
Whilst the example from Sheffield University reflects on a systems framework approach, this report argues, in greater detail in the Recommendations section, that more consistency in data measurement and presentation can better inform resourcing, accountability and ultimately opportunity across the UK. The principle remains however, that a comparative analysis, based on objective benchmarks, taken in context, could lead more appropriate resourcing. The allocation of resources from the UK level to the Home Nations is analogous to the Strategic Asset Allocation framework used in investing, whereby capital market expectations, informed through the study of objective data, determines the allocation of funds to various asset classes (e.g. Equities or fixed income). The use of those resources by the Devolved Administrations is more akin to individual security selection within those asset classes (e.g. Growth or Value equities) thereby retaining the independent allocation of resources. Both of these require data, which is inextricably linked, and must be consistent to provide the best chance of efficient allocation of capital, but yet may be used and applied in a different manner dependent on which level one is operating at.
The concluding aim of addressing this challenge is to better resource the Devolved Administrations, from central government, using comparative information free, in as much as possible, from political and systematic incoherence, so as resources are allocated to their best effect at all levels of government and accountability is improved.
