In November last year, unnoticed by a country worrying about the continuing lockdown, the House of Lords Public Services Committee released their report ‘A critical juncture for public services: lessons from COVID-19’. We didn’t notice it either at the time, but on 22^nd July it was laid before Parliament by the committee chair, Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top. The report examined the pressures on public services caused by the Covid pandemic and looked at how these pressures might be able to be alleviated in future, as well as how the rapid developments made during the pandemic might be retained after the end of the pandemic.

Those who have been with us for a while will know that this is something we have also been interested in, and we’ve often praised our consultation and engagement colleagues across many sectors for the innovative and novel ways in which they responded to the pandemic. The report itself is an interesting read, and covers a wide range of topics, but one of them is of particular interest to us.

One of the key principles that the report puts forward is that “users must be involved in the design and delivery of public services”. It will perhaps not surprise you to learn that this is something we firmly believe too. Three of the chapters particularly speak to how this might be achieved, firstly the fourth chapter “’Co-production’ and user voice”; secondly, the seventh chapter “Empowering local public services and communities”; and finally, the tenth chapter on “Digital Technology and Innovation in Frontline Public services”.

The chapter on co-production is an interesting one for several reasons, not least because it takes a rather broader approach to co-production than we usually would, which we would say risks conflation with consultation more generally- when in fact they are different things with different and important distinctions. The primary argument seems to be in favour of more broad use in the design and delivery of public service of ‘lived experience’, something that can be achieved not only by co-production, but also other broader use of other consultation and engagement techniques.

Co-production is one of those techniques that is oft mentioned, but often little understood. Whilst we would stop short of calling it a fad, in certain circumstances it can be very valuable, it’s certainly fashionable as a form of engagement in a similar way to citizens assemblies. Whilst there are certainly circumstances where ‘true’ co-production would be useful in design and delivery of public services, we would argue for a more cautious approach utilising more consultation– with proper co-production being carefully used where appropriate.

One of the areas where this approach is particularly advocated for is in achieving better public service outcomes for BAME people in particular- though we might also extend this to other minority groups (the report has a separate section on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups who would also benefit from more and better engagement- though curiously the report does not suggest this). With the pandemic having exposed, particularly in healthcare, the still enormous diversity in outcomes in BAME communities, it is certainly true that more efforts need to be made to effectively reach out and involve them in service design.

The seventh chapter of the report looks at “Empowering local public services and communities” is largely focussed on integration, localism, and communities. One of the problems identified is that during Covid the “overly centralised response” hampered service delivery- again something we have long argued was the case. Combined with the lack of consultation and engagement on lots of measures this led to a near-perfect storm in some cases, with easily predictable problems emerging because the right people hadn’t been spoken to.

The report advocates a place-based approach, to better utilise local resources in achieving integrated approaches across different public services. Here we find another place where more and better consultation, and particularly engagement, is likely to be very valuable. Developing ongoing relationships in a continuous engagement style format would allow the appropriate community networks to be set up and maintained, and mean that as well as good general ongoing engagement, when a crisis arose, the systems were already in place across local communities to bring together relevant knowledge in a useful manner.

In the NHS, ICSs were highlighted as a valuable tool, and with the Health and Care Bill now under consideration these will shortly be expanded even further with the intent of giving a statutory backing to a properly integrated health and social care system. Building on this will require consideration of how this system also works across other sectors- what connections can be developed with infrastructure for example, or local economic concerns.

Questions might also need to be asked about how effectively emergency bodies (beyond the regular emergency services) are able to act. How are they best integrated into these place-based community networks? One of the interesting decisions made by central government in the early stages of the pandemic was the genesis of the Coronavirus Act 2020 as a framework for the management of the crisis, rather than using the existing powers under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which could have been used to much the same effect- albeit with more parliamentary oversight (no doubt one of the major reasons the Government were not minded to do so).

From a cynical political perspective, this lack of effective oversight is another reason there would be advantages to a more decentralised consultative approach. Consultation, engagement, and localism would have not only helped the Government by giving them more and better information to work with in tackling the emergency, but also would have helped them to diffuse the responsibility for their actions when things did go wrong. Although this is perhaps a somewhat morally dubious argument, we should not shy away from the fact that consultation does not occur in a vacuum and can often end up being nakedly political in one way or another. Whilst those running consultations are often not politicians themselves, we should not be blind to the fact that many ordering them are.

The final section of the report that warrants serious consideration is the section on “Digital technology and innovation in frontline public services”. Almost all sectors, private or public, and almost all industries, have had to fundamentally change their ways of working. The advance of technology has made this significantly easier and, in many cases, has achieved positive results.

Health and social care has been one of the most prominent areas where this has occurred with many appointments moving online to take place over the many video conferencing software suites available. Already though we are seeing politicians getting antsy about the possibility of this becoming the default. A similar situation is seen with regard to home working, and other areas where activity has moved away from centralised locations to a more decentralised model.

In some regards, nervous politicians are justified in their concerns, and any advances prompted or accelerated by the pandemic should be taken forward carefully. Evaluation of these advances, as the report suggests, should be done in close collaboration with service-users who are making personal decisions about their own lives and should be allowed to give their perspectives. With many people enthused by the new methods, it would be a mistake to take a reactionary approach and return to the default without properly considering the benefits of cautious retention.

The other point that the report makes is on digital skills- another area to which we have paid much attention. Whilst many consultations went significantly online during the pandemic, we have always argued (and largely seen) that methods must also always be provided for the seldom online. The Committee report argues mostly that the Government should invest more in digital skills and access for those at risk of digital exclusion, and whilst we agree on this, we would also assert that of itself this is not enough and should not be held out as a get-out clause. The responsibility to promote accessibility cannot be properly discharged by merely offering people the tools. Until digital skills have reached one hundred percent population saturation, the onus remains on the public body to assist by whatever means they can.

We have been moving towards an attitude of digital-first, rather than digital-only. Firmly rooting your consultation or engagement activity in the online can be very valuable in reaching a wide number of people- for many people it is by far the most convenient method of response. But this should not be done to the exclusion of those who do not have internet access or are not comfortable enough with the tech to confidently respond.

The approaches taken must also be very context specific. If your activity is with groups that are more statistically likely to be seldom-online, then you should be very cautious about even doing a digital-first consultation. One of the things we’ve increasingly seen in consultation legal cases is the triumph of context, the importance of doing the right thing which might differ depending on the surrounding circumstances. In an ever more digital world, this couldn’t be more important.

In general, the report is an admirable effort to learn lessons from the pandemic which we largely agree with. The suggestions it makes are sensible and, disputes over terminology aside, we would certainly support the recommendation of more involvement with the public in delivery of public services. The most important thing however is not just the delivery of more consultation and engagement, but more good consultation and engagement. At the Institute, we are always keen to push the boundaries, and go beyond the base line of legality or mere good practice. We know most of our colleagues do too. Let’s strive together to be ever better.