Less is more for public sector scrutiny
25 Sep 07
Review recommends one body to oversee regulation of public services
An independent review of public service regulation has recommended that one body oversee the scrutiny of such services.
The Independent Review of Regulation, Audit, Inspection and Complaints Handling of Public Services in Scotland makes 42 recommendations to improve scrutiny of the public sector.
The review, chaired by Harper Macleod’s managing partner Professor Lorne Crerar, outlines how public services could be given greater responsibility to measure their performance to comply with regulation and calls for independent external scrutiny of the NHS.
Other recommendations include:
- ministers should assess existing scrutiny activity with the aim of reducing activity;
- the voice of service users should be strengthened to develop more outcome-focused public services;
- scrutiny organisations should work together to eliminate duplication and co-ordinate activity;
- cost/benefit analysis should become a routine element of any decisions about the use of external scrutiny;
- ministers should appoint one body to co-ordinate scrutiny of local government, and scrutiny of the NHS should become independent;
- a single national scrutiny body could be set up in the longer term;
- the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman should oversee all public service complaints-handling systems.
Professor Crerar said: "The role of scrutiny is to provide independent assurance that public services are well managed, safe, fit for purpose and spending taxpayers' money efficiently.
"All the public bodies I spoke to agreed that scrutiny was important. However, those responsible for providing services were critical of the current burden they perceived to exist, with many suggesting that the costs outweigh the benefits.
The professor believes his recommendations will cut bureaucracy, free up resources and increase the focus of public services on the experience of the user.
"I am proposing a substantial reduction in the burden experienced by providers that, in the longer term, would reduce significantly what I believe to be an unnecessarily overcrowded landscape.
"What I am proposing is radically different from current arrangements and could eventually lead to the creation of one single scrutiny body. I do not underestimate the work that will be required to deliver it but, given the concerns that have been expressed to me, and my own view of the complex arrangements that have evolved, I believe it is right to recommend these steps be taken now."
The Independent Review of Regulation, Audit, Inspection and Complaints Handling of Public Services in Scotland and associated background material can be viewed at www.scrutinyreview.org .