DfT Was Right Not To Let Too Much Fairness Get In The Way
On holiday in Italy earlier last month, I thought it might make it more enjoyable for everyone if I bought us all ice creams.
But then I checked the moving annual average for the kids’ sugar consumption that I keep as a spreadsheet on my phone, and realised that Sophia has had 30g more per day than Anna.
So I bought Anna two ice creams, and Sophia didn’t get one.
It seemed fairer that way…
OK, let me be quite clear: that’s not what happened. I’m not crazy.
But the point I’m making is that fairness is genuinely important but - in this case - being too fair would have got in the way of the outcome I was seeking: to make the holiday more enjoyable.
The reason I’m talking about this today is that I expect there have been some people who’ve reacted to the news of Mini Switzerland being funded by thinking “that’s not fair”.
After all, there was no funding pot, no competition, no published criteria and no selection process.
Instead, the Department for Transport (DfT) simply provided public funding to an idea developed by a self-selected voluntary coalition.
In this post I’m going to explain why I think the DfT did exactly the right thing - and should do so more often.
Why Fairness Matters
Fairness is crucial to public decision-making. Almost all decisions (like Mini Switzerland) involve spending taxpayers’ money. There are many reasons why these decisions need to be fair, including:
A fair process will often result in better value for money through open competition
A fair process makes it likely that every possible solution or supplier is considered.
Without fairness, you can end up with rampant corruption. Think Donald Trump’s White House.
A fair process ensures the public have confidence their money is being used well
So there are lots of reasons why it’s crucial for public sector bodies to prioritise fairness.
But…
Why Fairness is not What Matters
All of these goals are in the service of something bigger and more important: achieving outcomes on behalf of the public.
Value for money and a plurality of solutions make these more likely. Corruption makes achieving outcomes less likely. Public confidence is essential to their willingness to pay taxes that fund the outcomes.
So fairness isn’t the end goal in itself: it’s an enabler to achieving outcomes.
This is crucial as we should only focus on fairness when it makes it more likely to achieve the outcomes. That is most of the time - but it’s got to be nuanced.
Is Mini Switzerland Fair?
Let’s explore the possible “It’s not fair” reaction to Mini Switzerland.
There are other campaigning groups trying to achieve other things in the field of transport.
They might say “If we knew £6m was available, we’d have applied”. They might say “My project is bigger / better / more important than this one”. They may say “Who the hell are these people anyway?”.
(And, by the way, not a single soul has said any of these things to my face. But I wouldn’t be surprised if someone, somewhere has thought at least one of them).
All reasonable.
The corollary is that they must feel that funding for things like Mini Switzerland should only be allocated following an open, transparent, criteria-based process.
I disagree, and I will now explain why.
The Downsides of Pots
If you’re going to have an open, transparent competition, you’re going to have to allocate a funding pot.
Then you’re going to have to invite bids.
I’ve written before about why pots are such a bad idea but here’s a summary:
1) They distort local priorities. Councils are forced to flex their plans to integrate projects that fit the pot, as opposed to local need.
2) They’re incredibly expensive. Cornwall spent £650,000 on consultants’ fees to win Superbus, BSIP and ZEBRA funding (never mind the acronyms right now). They won all those pots. But other councils also spent six-figure sums and saw nothing back.
3) They’re distracting. The consultants need to be managed and the funding bids reviewed and submitted. All that’s time that could be spent focusing on improving outcomes locally.
But there’s an even more important reason why open and transparent pots aren’t the way to go: they’re highly constraining.
The DfT didn’t know it wanted Mini Switzerland until it saw it.
It didn’t go into the process of creating the Integrated National Transport Strategy saying “We’re going to spend £6m on a transport integration project in a National Park, so let’s have an open competition between all the National Parks to find the best idea”.
They created a strategy and, at the same time, we created Mini Switzerland.
Through that process, it became clear that Mini Switzerland could be a valuable element to that strategy.
It would never have emerged through a funding pot.
Pace Matters
“Ah!”, says our dissatisfied rival, “But they should have published an unfunded strategy and then run an open competition to choose the projects to fund.”
Well, yes, they could have done that.
But that would have added another year onto the timeline. Mini Switzerland is in delivery now. Having published the report in January, we could have then spent the next year translating it into the right format for a DfT funding competition. Or, more accurately, East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) could have.
But much better to spend that time on delivering, wouldn’t you say?
The reality is that funding pots focus on fairness but with so many downsides that the benefits of fairness are lost.
These include slowing things down, distracting Councils, constraining options and wasting money on consultants.
And that’s before you get to the potential abuse of funding competitions. Who can forget the glorious Towns Fund allocations by Robert Jenrick under the last Government? I wrote about that here at the time, but just in case you’ve forgotten, Newark, a constituency that could hardly be considered deprived (270th in the deprivation league table) got £25m from a levelling-up programme.
Newark was, of course, Jenrick’s constituency.
Andrew Marr asked him how it was decided that he’d get cash given that, on face value, his constituency didn’t qualify.
Robert Jenrick. All above board. Obviously…
Here’s the transcript:
JENRICK: If the question you’re coming to is was I involved in selecting my own community, absolutely not. Ministers do not get involved in their own constituencies. That decision was made by another minister in my department.
MARR: Who?
JENRICK: It was made by Jake Berry.
MARR: Who also got money for his constituency.
JENRICK: Well, that was a decision made by another minister
MARR: Who?
JENRICK: Well, it was made by myself.
MARR: So you decided that Jake Berry’s constitency got money and Jake Berry decided that your constituency got money.
JENRICK: With respect Andrew, this is perfectly normal
If you don’t believe me, watch it yourself.
So even a ‘fair’ process might not be fair.
Anything doesn’t go
To the person unhappy about the decision to fund Mini Switzerland not their own project, it might feel unfair.
But is it an unreasonable decision? Is Mini Switzerland a good use of public funds?
Well, I would say that it is. (I would, wouldn’t I).
There may not have been a funding pot with an open, transparent competition but there was plenty of evidence that this was good value for the taxpayer and likely to deliver positive outcomes:
We published this report earlier this year, which made a clear and robust case for the benefits of Mini Switzerland. That provided evidence that DfT could use to make their decision.
It was entirely aligned with the ambitions of Better Connected, DfT’s strategy - which was published at the same time.
We assembled a coalition of supporters, including the local Mayor, the rail operator, bus operators, Transport Focus and Foundation for Integrated Transport.
It was always clear that this was a learning demonstrator to provide the wider public sector (including local authorities nationwide) evidence and data.
Indeed, I would give DfT an enormous pat on the back for reacting with agility such as to fund a project just months after the report was published and less than a year after the concept was even created.
Time is money, and they saved both time and money.
I would suggest that the decision to fund Mini Switzerland should be considered a role-model both for future DfT decisions and for the wider Government.
At a time when the voters struggle to believe that Government can get anything done, focusing on outcomes ahead of perceived procedural fairness can sometimes be the right approach.
Let’s see more demonstrators funded less than a year after inception and discover what works in the real world!
For more on Mini Switzerland, you can read:
