A government that relies too much on anecdote, doesn’t have enough specialists in top positions and isn’t properly held to account.

That was the disagnosis from Len Cook, who used to be head of statistics for both the New Zealand and the UK governments, and who gave a very entertaining – but also worrying – talk last night on how our government runs.

Speaking at an IPANZ and IGPS seminar, his argument was that several problems are seriously hampering New Zealand’s ability to foot it in the twenty-first century.

The first is that our government isn’t currently dealing with a world that is becoming much, much more complex – we’re still trying to make decisions on the back of an anecdotal, ‘she’ll be right’ approach that might have been fine 50 years ago, but isn’t now.

“This country has made so much policy on the basis of anecdote and a lack of evidence. It isn’t clear that our future can be so dependent on serendipity and received wisdom.”

In particular, we don’t go back and look at what went wrong, Cook argued. “The absence of a commitment to evaluate [the success or failure of policies] in New Zealand government is extraordinary.”

New Zealanders were “amazed” by how much evaluation the British government did, he said. “We do very, very little … We need a proper review of things that go wrong as part of our culture.”

New Zealand was also behind in terms of how much it spent finding out about how its ‘non-traditional’ trading partners – such as China – functioned. While New Zealanders were very comfortable in, say, the UK, they didn’t put much effort into understanding countries less similar to theirs.

The second big problem is in the way government departments are run. Senior public sector workers now have to do so much managerial work, Cook said, that the amount of time spent on making sure that good-quality advice is being provided is correspondingly reduced.

The government also recruits too many “generalists” to run departments, so that “you have to go down three levels [in a department] before you find someone who knows what they are talking about”.

Senior public leaders were also failing to develop the next generation of leaders in the way they had done in the days of greater cooperation and the “college of cardinals” approach among chief executives.

The third big problem is that the government isn’t properly accountable for its actions, Cook said.

Ministers often haven’t been required to actually answer questions – except more recently under Lockwood Smith as Speaker – and select committees don’t have the “grunt” and the power they do in the UK.

In short, for the last century, Cook said, New Zealand had traded in well-known markets with long-established partners, and had been able to get by on ideology and beliefs – but no longer. “We have to develop a more enquiring capacity to analyse what’s happening.”

After his speech, people in the audience backed up some of these concerns, and expressed others. One public sector worker, in particular, talked about how the quality of policy advice was being compromised by “the desire to please ministers”, and cuts to budgets that took place “to the detriment of good advice”.

Because policy analysis was increasingly being “retrofitted” around what the minister had decided, often in the absence of good evidence, ministries now produced “policy-based evidence” rather than “evidence-based policy”, the public sector worker said.

The wit and wisdom of Len Cook

On cross-party liaisons being forbidden: “In recent years, it’s become important to sleep in sheets of the same colour, whether you’re at home or not.”

On ministerial competence: “We have a great political system, but it’s like giving the keys to the car to teenagers on Saturday night – and they do wheelies with it.”

On government being so fragmented by the 1980s and 90s structural changes: ministerial responsibilities are “a random scattering, a bit like pick-up sticks”.

On Sky City: “20 years ago, I fired a mid-ranking public official who spoke to one of the parties [in a tender] and gave them information he shouldn’t have. Did I make the wrong decision?”

On inquiries: New Zealanders look for “a safe pair of hands” to run a review, whereas the British want to be “done over by the best bastard”.

The recent fate of UK leaders in New Zealand highlights the difficulty of parachuting in managers from one country to another.

Every country has different rules for its public services – which is why UK civil servants aren’t always a hit overseas.

“An unexpected journey” is the subtitle of the first Hobbit film, New Zealand’s latest contribution to world cinema. It’s also been the fate of Lesley Longstone, the senior British civil servant who was recruited to head up New Zealand’s Ministry of Education, and who is now returning home just over a year into a five-year contract.

Longstone’s abrupt departure follows that of Janet Grossman, who returned to the UK last year after only nine months as the head of Work and Income New Zealand, a frontline benefits and work support agency.

It is often assumed that public managers can move seamlessly from one country to another, especially if they possess a shared cultural heritage and similar political systems. But these two recent departures rather give the lie to that idea – in particular Longstone’s experience, which was marked by a series of disasters.

An attempt to increase class sizes, in order to redirect money into teacher training, resulted in a humiliating backdown after parents and teachers revolted. A move to merge schools in post-earthquake Christchurch was just as badly handled, with parts of it struck down by the courts. To cap it all off, a new private sector system for paying teachers, called Novopay, has been a near-total failure – so much so that it is known in some quarters as Novopain.

Not all of this is Longstone’s fault, of course. New Zealand’s education minister, Hekia Parata, new to the job, is widely regarded as being out of her depth, and was described by the main teachers’ union as “aloof and autocratic”. It is no surprise that the two women had the “strained” relationship that was cited as the main reason for Longstone’s departure.

In the words of Brenda Pilott, the head of New Zealand’s Public Service Association union, Longstone became “the fall guy for an inept minister”.

But several factors counted against the British import. First, despite having held senior positions in Britain, Longstone apparently had no actual experience of running a department or the all-important matter of managing a direct relationship with a minister. In particular, she may not have appreciated how difficult it would be to work for Parata.

Moreover, she had no personal knowledge of the way the New Zealand public sector works – which is, in some key ways, quite different from its British equivalent. Civil servants at all levels in New Zealand have a much closer relationship with their minister than is the case in most countries. Its chief executives, in particular, are more obviously accountable for their performance, through private sector-style contracts and set objectives.

In Longstone’s case, that accountability translated, rightly or wrongly, into having to front up to the media to defend key decisions, after Parata failed to show – something that UK permanent secretaries, for example, would rarely, if ever, have to do.

The reasons for Grossman’s departure are less clear, and may have been partly personal. But it cannot have helped that her minister, Paula Bennett, suddenly appointed a board of outside “experts” to oversee Work and Income’s operations. Internal power struggles between Work and Income and its parent body, the Ministry of Social Development, are also rumoured to have played a part.

For neither Longstone nor Grossman would any of these internal issues have been clear from afar. These issues might, however, have been picked up by people who knew the terrain better – including those who have made the cross-country transition more cautiously.

After all, many of New Zealand’s public sector leaders are originally from the UK. But the successful ones have usually gone out there for the long term and worked their way up through the hierarchy, rather than being parachuted in.

As Pilott put it, the New Zealand government “needs to think long and hard about making overseas appointments, and consider the unique complexities, demands and pressures of the New Zealand context”. Nonetheless, the trend continues: Kevin Lavery, the chief executive of Britain’s Cornwall county council, has just been appointed to run the city council in New Zealand’s capital, Wellington.

Lavery, whose time at Cornwall has been controversial, may of course prove to be a good appointment, especially if he has done his homework. But if not, recent history suggests that he may end up, in the words of the Hobbit’s original subtitle, going “there and back again”.

First published in The Guardian

Unions fear government spending on consultants could skyrocket after it was revealed that the bill hit $375 million last financial year – and John Key warned of “significant” restructuring to come.

The Government spent more than $375 million on consultants and contractors in 2010-11 as a series of government restructurings made thousands of public sector workers redundant, figures show.

Consultants were paid as much as $275 an hour or $2500 a day, according to figures released by 31 government departments and agencies under the Official Information Act.

Some departments are increasing spending on consultants while getting rid of workers who, across all the departments involved, make an average of $33 an hour based on a 40-hour week.

The $375 million is lower than the $400 million the same departments spent in 2008-09, Labour’s last year in power.

Cabinet minister Tony Ryall said consultants were used only when it did not make sense to have permanent staff – for example on short-term projects or schemes needing particular technical skills.

This “expertise” had helped government departments respond to change, he said. “[But] over time I would expect that the costs associated with buying in this expertise would go down.”

However, Richard Wagstaff, national secretary of the Public Services Association, said the $375 million was “significantly” higher than the $335 million the same departments had spent in 2009-10, National’s first year.

That showed departments had lost “a lot of institutional knowledge” when 2000 public sector workers were made redundant under National, and faced “desperate capability and capacity problems”.

The Prime Minister’s promise of “significant” restructurings next year would mean further public sector job cuts and even more consultants employed, Mr Wagstaff said.

It was “extraordinary” that some departments were spending more on consultants despite shedding in-house staff, he added.

Since 2008, the Ministry of Economic Development has increased spending on consultants by $12 million – enough to pay for 161 in-house workers – and made 29 staff redundant.

In a statement, the ministry said the increased spending was due to several major IT upgrades and work on new projects including the Rugby World Cup, the national cycleway and the emissions trading scheme.

Similarly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade more than doubled its spending on consultants, from $4.5 million to $9.8 million, while shedding 14 staff. Its biggest increases came in HR, information and public affairs, and property management.

Other departments to increase consultancy spending but shed staff included the Ministry of Transport, Te Puni Kokiri and the Ministry of Health.

Mr Ryall said consultants were not used to replace staff made redundant. But Mr Wagstaff said many consultants were former public sector workers “doing the same thing they used to do, but for a lot more money”.

Some spending on consultants was appropriate, he said, “but they shouldn’t be doing things that departments could do for themselves and which would be cheaper in the long run for departments to do”.

The figures released by departments under the Official Information Act show government consulting can be a lucrative business. Department of Internal Affairs figures reveal it paid consultants Citrix $275 an hour for advice on “identity services”.

It also paid IT firm Silverstripe $2,500 a day for work on data.govt.nz, a project to give the public easier access to government statistics.

Meanwhile, Housing New Zealand paid accounting firm Deloitte $4.2 million in one year to work on projects including an “affordable housing owners’ forum”.

In the election campaign, then Labour leader Phil Goff attacked National’s plan to pay Australian investment bankers Lazard $100 million for advice on its plan to part-sell state assets.

And the Herald reported in September that the Department of Corrections has hired 18 different firms of advisers for a planned privately run prison in Auckland, at a likely cost of $11 million.

A State Services Commission report from July this year backed some of the concerns expressed about consultancy spending.

The commission’s reviews of government departments found that they needed to adopt “an approach of recruiting skilled personnel … to build internal capability and progressively lessen the reliance on contractors”.

Otherwise, they risked losing vital knowledge about how to carry out their work, which they would then have to buy in.

First published in The New Zealand Herald

Government funding cuts could see struggling district health boards (DHBs) go further into deficit, the Treasury has admitted.

In a briefing paper, officials say the boards will have find an extra $258 million over the next four years because the government no longer subsidises their Kiwisaver and pensions contributions.

“If an individual DHB is unable to fully fund this cost pressure, the level of its deficit would increase,” the paper says.

Capital and Coast Health DHB, which ran a $47.5 million deficit in 2009-10, will have to find an extra $20 million in savings as a result of the changes. It has already cut millions of dollars’ worth of services, including home help to the elderly and mental health clinics.

The DHB did not respond to APNZ’s questions at the time of going to press.

Health Minister Tony Ryall said the extra costs were a “very small” amount – less than 1% of the boards’ total budget of over $10 billion.

Their financial management had “improved significantly” since National took office, and their projected deficits had fallen $160 million to around $30 million this year, he said.

Brent Wiseman, the chief financial officer of the Auckland DHB, said staff were working more efficiently, “which mean that more services can be delivered for the same costs”.

The board hoped to run a surplus next year despite having to find an extra $40 million in the next four years.

However, Grant Robertson, Labour’s health spokesperson, said the government had made it clear that health boards would not get extra funding to make up for the subsidy being cut.

“This means it will have to come from already over-stretched budgets and will inevitably lead to cuts in services.”

Health received an extra $452 million in May’s Budget, but the CTU has estimated that that was nearly $110 million short of what was needed to keep pace with increased staffing and equipment purchasing costs.

“These are DHBs that are already suffering from underfunding,” Mr Robertson said. “The amount of money they have been given has not kept up with the cost of inflation and an ageing population for the last two years, and this is just another blow to them.”

The Treasury briefing paper also reveals that schools will have to find an extra $304 million over the next four years as a result of the changes.
Education Minister Anne Tolley said “no decisions” had been made about how the cost would be met.

However, Sue Moroney, Labour’s education spokesperson, warned that parents would have to pick up the tab.

“It’s worrying, because the only places that schools can get funding is from government, from parents via school fees, or from fundraising.

“So the picture this paints is that they will be even more pressure on parents to pay even higher school fees. Families are really struggling out there, and they just can’t cope with these continued increases in costs.”

Schools got a 2.9% increase in the operation grant funding in the Budget, but Ms Moroney said that was not enough to keep pace with inflation or growth in school rolls.

The Treasury paper also warns that the Ministry of Education payroll system may find it “challenging” to make the changes to staff’s pay by next year. But the ministry said it “considers it will be possible” to make the changes in time.

A belief that there shouldn’t be profit in public service has led one former council chief executive to pledge a £100,000 redundancy payout back to the public, but it’s also a break with the past, he says.

Jim McKenna is not, he insists, a saint. He is, in his own words, an “ordinary” guy who likes playing cricket, watching Leeds United and having a drink in the pub afterwards. But he is vowing to do something out of the ordinary.

As the former chief executive of Penwith district council, at the far end of Cornwall, McKenna received a £100,000 redundancy payout when the council was abolished last year. He accepted the money – but has now promised to give it back to local town and parish councils, £5,000 a year over the next 20 years, no conditions attached.

His motives are partly philosophical: “We live in a very poor area, we live in difficult times,” he says, “so I’ve thought about it long and hard and it’s what I want to do. I don’t think it’s appropriate for people who live in high levels of public service to profit from that.”

Redundancy also came during a “horrendous” year for McKenna personally, as he struggled with family and financial problems that resulted in the payout itself being swallowed up. His pledge to give back the money afforded him a clean break with the past, but means he now needs to earn enough to honour his promise. He plans a life in which consultancy work several days a week will earn him enough to pay it back and allow him to work one or two days a week for local charities

Though Cornwall may be popularly thought of as a pretty spot for a holiday, a long stretch of sandy beaches and Rick Stein restaurants, it has its share of social problems. Penwith is one of the 40 most deprived areas in the country, according to 2007 figures, while across the county an influx of second-home buyers is pricing many locals out of the housing market.

One of the charities benefitting from McKenna’s help is the Kerrier and the Fal Credit Union, a mutual savings institution that uses local investments to make small loans to the needy. Based in Redruth, it helps keep people out of the hands of the numerous loan sharks that operate in the area.

“There’s a lot of people who can’t get bank accounts,” says Maria Coleman, the credit union’s secretary. “They come to us – and it’s cheaper for them as well. We don’t put on massive charges like the banks do.”

Further down the peninsula, in Penzance, is Penwith Radio, an internet station that started life as a service for lonely elderly people and now broadcasts a wide range of programmes five days a week.

“It’s a great way of tackling loneliness and isolation,” says Chris Goninan, one of the station’s directors. “This will solve a lot of problems – but it doesn’t take massive amounts of money. It needs will and drive to make it happen.”

To add to that will and drive, McKenna brings a contacts book and an intimate knowledge of local public bodies that will be hugely useful as the station aims for an FM broadcasting licence.

All this is part of his plan to give something back to a community he has come to love after arriving here 11 years ago as a born and bred Northerner (hence his regular 1,000 mile roundtrips to watch Leeds play).

No-one has ever minded his background, he says, because he doesn’t put on “airs and graces”.

Everywhere we visit, he is at ease joking around with co-workers and volunteers – who aren’t afraid to return the favour. We stop by a building site near Redruth, where one of McKenna’s ventures is helping develop mid-priced houses – around the £160,000 mark – many of which he hopes will go to local first-time buyers.

As we inspect the almost completed houses, one worker calls out, jokingly, “Can I have my £5,000?”

These quips aside, McKenna admits opinions are divided on his vow to return the redundancy money: “Some people thought it was a fantastic idea. Some people thought I should have my sanity checked.”

He doesn’t believe in “profiting from public service”, even if his former salary – which local newspaper reports put at £95,000 – set him well above the average.

“Everyone in the district has made a contribution to the redundancy [money], so I should give it back [to them],” he says simply. “I don’t need a lot of money to live. As long as I have enough money to look after my family… and I can afford to watch Leeds, I’m happy.”

When it comes to the wider question of public sector pay and conditions, his views are mixed. High salaries are justified “for the right people if they have the ability to transform services.”

But he admits that in an area such as Cornwall, “I fully understand why people would look at someone earning £95,000 and think, how on earth is that justified?”

Council chief executives moving from one job to another, often picking up handsome payments along the way, can be a problem, he admits.

“I can see why people get vexed if someone walks from one job to another within a matter of weeks. I wouldn’t necessarily regard that as the best use of public money. That may be something the government will look at.”

Either way, he doesn’t regret “for a second” promising to give back the money. “It was one of the best things I’ve ever done… It was a really difficult year, and [the decision] felt good. I very much want to look forward.”

 First published in The Guardian

A pioneering project in north London shows the value of getting public agencies to work together. But having one person ‘go into bat’ for vulnerable families is just as important.

Angela, a cute one-year-old with tight pigtails, plays placidly amongst the scattered toys in the Packington Estate’s children’s centre in north London. A year ago she was “crying all the time”, her mother, Evelyne, says.

Evelyne, isolated from her family and struggling with her English, had no support: “In the beginning, I didn’t know anybody.”

Help came in the form of the families project run by Hyde, the estate’s housing association. Now in its second year, it brings together 17 public agencies that deal with families, including local schools, health visitors and Islington council.

Vulnerable families on the estate, which is among the most deprived 5% in the country, sit down with representatives from some or all of the agencies to talk about everything they need from public services. A ‘lead professional’ from one of the agencies then works closely with the family, acting as a bridge to other bodies.

For Evelyne, the project has opened up services she didn’t even know existed: a children’s support worker to help her with Angela, a trip to the citizens advice bureau to look at fighting an unfair dismissal from work, and help chasing up a lost tax credit application.

Being able to call up her lead professional, who can “introduce” her to other agencies, has been life changing.

Cassandra Favager, Hyde’s regeneration manager, says the project is helping 40 families who aren’t being looked after by social services but may have up to a dozen major problems. Closer working by public agencies, a key aim, hasn’t been easily achieved.

It was “a real struggle convincing housing officers [the project] was worth their time”, she says; even now the culture change has happened “better with some than others”.

The project’s first year threw up some difficulties. Teachers often wouldn’t show up for daytime meetings, something the project may tackle by meeting more at schools. Some families found the group meetings “overwhelming”, and will need to be better briefed beforehand and have their lead professional on board earlier.

But overall the project transformed families’ lives, Favager says, and “opened doors between services that knew each other existed but only went to each other in times of crisis”.

The children’s centre now houses mental health services, while parenting and stop smoking surgeries take place elsewhere on the estate. Workers learn new skills: for example, housing officers are trained to identify potential domestic violence.

And the cost? Not much, Favager says: one full-time coordinator (funded by central government) and a part-time project manager.

Nor is it a drain on time. Lead professionals may have to make a few phone calls around other agencies, but the time saved by being able to refer individuals on makes participation “a no-brainer”, she says.

An independent evaluation of the project’s first year found it had achieved its aims, helping families receive more grants and resolve problems with their children more quickly. Favager admits she can’t yet prove it saves money, but insists the project has “demonstrated its worth” and shouldn’t fear public sector cuts.

Evelyne, meanwhile, has no doubts. In an era when the government expects individuals to do more, she is clear that, in fact, greater one-to-one support is vital. “If I need help, I just call Mary [her lead professional],” she says. “The project is good for me. It can’t stop.”

First published in The Guardian

While citizen involvement has become an election buzzword, local groups are left railing against the reality.

A warm, sunny Sunday in April brings the season’s first sunbathers on to the shingled beaches of Hastings, in East Sussex. A perfect day, too, for promenading on the pier – or it would be if it hadn’t been closed for four years as a health hazard to the public.

Hastings pier, owned since 2000 by Panama-based property company Ravenclaw, is a potent symbol of community decline. Behind its barred gates, the shops lie empty and the attractions are boarded up. It needs at least £2m in structural repairs after successive owners have let its pillars and trusses decay.

Citizen involvement is a main plank in the political parties’ election campaigns, with the Conservatives promising a community right-to-buy as part of its plans for a big society. This would give groups the first right of refusal on assets – such as parks and libraries – sold off by public agencies. Labour, meanwhile, can point to the Advancing Assets for Communities programme, a series of pilot schemes designed to transfer local assets to community groups.

But the fight by the Hastings Pier and White Rock Trust (HPWRT) to take control of their local amenity is a salutory lesson in how difficult community ownership can be in practice.

Angela Davis, an HPWRT trustee, says it has been “three years of battle” to get the Conservative-run borough council to back the idea of handing over the pier to the community group, using a compulsory purchase order. The group believes that a rejuvenated pier – with a traders’ market, bars and shops – would help Hastings to reverse falling visitor numbers and regenerate the town.

It has taken seven months for the group to get a £75,000 grant, from the government’s Community Builders programme, for a feasibility study of its proposals.

“You do need business acumen within a community group,” says Davis, pointing out that her fellow trustees include the manager of a local shopping centre and a hotel owner. If all goes well, she plans to ask Community Builders for the £2m needed to restore the front section of the pier, and the Heritage Lottery Fund for at least another £2m to tackle the rest.

The other big obstacle is time – or lack of it. Davis, a former business and IT consultant, has the financial security to work unpaid for over 50 hours a week, but points out that, for most people, “life is difficult enough earning a living, raising a family, and so on” without trying to take over the local library or community centre.

A recent report by the Asset Transfer Unit (ATU), the government-funded arm of the Development Trusts Association, reveals that only 11 of the 75 pilots launched in April 2007 to transfer local assets to community groups have been successful, with a further 15 nearly completed.

The little-used Sneyd Green community hall in Stoke-on-Trent is one success story. Taken over and transformed by the local community association, it is now fully booked for events months in advance. Another success is in South Gloucestershire, where a local group is now running Winterbourne Medieval Barn and using it to host community events and education programmes.

However, the ATU’s report identifies problems on both sides. Many councils are risk averse, and are unwilling to invest the time, energy and money needed. Some have “confrontational” relationships with community groups, or are seeking to offload only assets damaged beyond repair. On the other side, many community groups “require significant time and in-depth support”, especially where they have little or no experience of running assets.

The report says it is too early to say if those problems are greater in deprived communities, where most pilots take place, but it admits that the subject “may well merit further investigation”.

In particular, groups need “unfettered investment capital” – something that may be harder to find in poorer areas. The bottom line, the report says, is that asset transfers can take, on average, five years from first contact.

Back in Hastings, Davis remains optimistic that, if all goes well, her group could have control of the pier by the end of the year. But, given the obstacles they have faced, she says that to expect hundreds of other local groups to follow their lead is “very much an ideal”.

First published in The Guardian

John Carleton is the head of Local Partnerships, the newest body trying to help councils drive a better bargain with private companies. He brings a wealth of experience from public service, banking, consultancy … and international rugby

Perhaps one of the lowest points in John Carleton’s international rugby career, in which he garnered 32 caps for England and seven tries, came on the unsuccessful 1983 Lions’ tour to New Zealand. Three months of rain had culminated in yet another defeat in the “horizontal snow” of Dunedin.

“I remember it distinctly,” Carleton says, “because the World Cup cricket was on in the UK. I was lying in bed in New Zealand in a tracksuit, cold, and watching England and Pakistan from Old Trafford on the TV and it was 80-odd degrees and people had their shirts off.”

He looks, fortunately, much happier now, newly installed as the first chief executive of Local Partnerships. The agency, formed out of the ashes of its predecessor, the 4ps, is now run as a joint venture between the Local Government Association and Partnerships UK, itself a public-private hybrid.

The agency’s job, Carleton says, is to be at the “interface” between councils and their private and voluntary sector partners, trying to make those relationships run more smoothly. But, as he acknowledges, it is no easy task.

Carleton, 53, has the kind of solid, compact build you’d expect from a former international winger, and an accent that bears the traces of his native Lancashire. His career has spanned both public and private sectors, first as a banker specialising in real estate, then at the Housing Corporation, where he says he was “humbled” by the dedication of his fellow workers showed in their attempts to improve some of the worst housing in the UK.

At that time, the relationship between the sectors was tainted by “huge amounts of suspicion on both sides”, he says.”I used to work for a guy who described partnership as the suppression of mutual loathing to access somebody else’s cash … I think a lot of people could see that sort of approach.”

Now, he says, both sides have come “an awful, awful long way”, though he accepts the relationship is far from perfect.

He acknowledges, too, that some public-private partnerships and outsourcing deals have been failures. That, he says, comes down to councils not knowing what they want at the outset.

“I bet nearly every time you find a partnership agreement that isn’t working, has flaws, has problems, those flaws can be rooted back to when the partnership was originally set up, and will be rooted back to potentially really poor choices, uninformed choices at [that] point.”

The mission for Local Partnerships, as he sees it, is to help councils make those choices better. Taking politicians’ promises of localism at face value, he insists that whichever party wins power in the general election next year, councils will be in control of more spending and policy.

“It’s not our role to second-guess how local authorities will deliver services to their people”

But as part of that, they will have to make “informed decisions” about what services they provide directly and which ones they outsource.

This doesn’t mean that the agency will be promoting privatisation, Carleton insists. Rather, it will be using its wealth of experience in hundreds of public-private schemes to help councils, especially small ones that struggle with complex, private sector-based projects, to strike better deals.

“It’s not our role to second-guess how local authorities will deliver services to their people,” he says. “It’s our job to help them find the best way of delivery, whether that be direct [public services], or whether that be working with partners.

“Our job … will be to help them find those partners, to help them structure the partnership arrangement right, to help them with the governance around that – and maybe even identify how they can fund that.”

One criticism levelled at the predecessor to Local Partnerships, the 4ps, was its lack of profile amongst senior council directors.

Carleton won’t comment on that, but says: “If that’s been the perception in the past, it certainly won’t be the reality in the future.”

He hopes to get out of his London office “at least” one day a week and go round the country talking to local councils. As he does, he will be “particularly interested” to hear from councils who feel their relationship with the 4ps “has not been that great. My offer, my promise, my commitment is, talk to me and let’s see how we can repair that.”

Another part of his mission is to get councils working together better. He admits it’s “not easy”, but insists good examples do exist, and that he will be pushing that message vigorously. He will also be pointing out that demands for services – notably in housing – Increasingly overspill local authority boundaries.

And he may be able to offer councils the incentive of start-up funding. In situations where a potentially cost-cutting project is being stymied by lack of upfront cash to invest, Local Partnerships could, he thinks, step in with some of its own money.

One problem he faces, however, is the need to charge councils for the agency’s services. Around a quarter of the Local Partnerships budget comes direct from government, but funding squeezes means the agency will increasingly look to the council fees that already currently make up the rest of its budget.

Will councils cough up more, given the enormous strain on budgets?

Carleton insists they will – as long as the agency can prove that its experience of working with private companies can help them drive a good bargain, and thus save money.

“If we can demonstrate to local public bodies that … we can help them deliver more for less – then, yes, they will pay for that.”

He takes the same line when asked whether the Conservatives, having made clear their dislike for quangos, might scrap Local Partnerships if they won power.

“Whichever government is in power, the services that they [councils] are empowered to deliver will increase,” he says. “So consequently if we are making them more efficient, more effective … I feel fairly comfortable that Local Partnerships has got a future, no matter who’s in government.”

First published in The Guardian