It is fascinating to watch the growing emphasis being placed on how to empower the user voice in the delivery of public services.

This has included recent speeches from both the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition on how to make the NHS more user-focused. However, there is a world of difference between political rhetoric and reality.
As chairman of Capita, I was very aware of my customers' views about our services on a day-to-day basis. Quite simply, if we did a good job, they stayed with us. And if we didn't, they went elsewhere.
The user voice was direct, immediate and disregarded at our peril. It shaped how we operated as a company, and our track record of service delivery was everything.
In the public sector, no such instant mechanism exists, and there is no immediate redress available to customers for poor performance. The views, therefore, of many users are shaped by extreme circumstances – when help is most needed will the organisation responsible provide it?
Many in these circumstances, I suggest, feel that despite extensive government investment, little has changed. A project my foundation is working on with the Prince's Trust on the plight of young offenders is an extreme illustration of this. At present, 78% of 18 to 21 year olds are reconvicted within two years of being released. More than half are unemployed when they enter prison. Few will get jobs when released, and one-third have nowhere to live. This is the output of the current policy.
Recently, I attended a discussion on young offenders in Downing Street. It was well populated by those responsible for administering this policy. All care about the situation and all have ideas on how to improve things. However, the most significant omission was the user voice. Where were the young people who have experienced the implications of these policies first hand? Just think how much more effective such gatherings would be if the user voice was represented to challenge thinking. 
Money should follow excellence and not used to fund existing bureaucratic structures which blatantly do not deliver. Too much policy is designed by those with little operational skills and not close enough to the end-user to fully understand the implications of it.
Too many initiatives are driven from top down, and not enough is learned from grass root user voice involvement of those actually experiencing the service provided. To redress this balance, perhaps the time is right for a nationwide, bottom-up institution to represent consumers' interests.