Title

Council chief executive Michael Lockwood is a signed-up enthusiast for Total Place but says ministers need to remove the legal obstacles to make it really fly. Few in the local authority world can now be unaware of Total Place; the philosophy that aims at an integrated future in which councils and other public bodies combine money and manpower to produce the best outcomes for residents. "The Government, in its zeal to promote Total Place, appears to have overlooked that the key piece of legislation which governs who councils can do business with - the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 - is fundamentally flawed when it comes to defining what a public body is." First, let me set out my own stall. I am a believer in Total Place. In the case of my own authority, it is surely common sense that the £1.7 billion spent in Harrow every year by Government - both central and local - and other public bodies can be more intelligently directed by one overarching mind. But it is about more than money. We are in a unique ‘people' business with the well being of residents sometimes literally in our hands. To cite just one example, there are obvious overlaps in the work that our adult care department performs with that of the borough's major hospital. The chance to support vulnerable people more effectively is just one reason why I believe in Total Place. In Harrow, we have spent the last six months advancing from early conversations with possible partners to an active courtship. That involves nuts-and-bolts conversations like - can we combine the back office staff of x department with yours? Can we share our legal teams? Do we all need these separate buildings? There is a major problem, however, when you move from enthusing about Total Place to actually trying it out in practice. It comes down to this. The Government, in its zeal to promote Total Place, appears to have overlooked that the key piece of legislation which governs who councils can do business with - the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 - is fundamentally flawed when it comes to defining what a public body is. Instead of defining public bodies broadly as those whom common sense suggests fit the bill, it lists only those it considers come within the definition. Conspicuously missing from the Act's definition of a public authority are organisations like Central Government, health trusts, and courts. Yet bizarrely, included in the definition, are the Norfolk Broads Authority and the Scilly Isles. So I could pitch my council into contra-deals with much loved holiday spots but I can't provide services with my local NHS Trust on the grounds it is technically not a public authority. Before you inundate me with legalese emails, I know there is a technical work-around to this issue in the Act. Under clause five, a Government minister can make an order to designate a particular organisation as a public authority if he/she feels inclined. So, all you need is a friendly minister, a statutory Parliamentary instrument and a 28 day waiting period and you are in business. However, every council will have the wearying task of formally identifying useful organisations in its area as public authorities. Hardly a shining demonstration of lean Government. The reality is that this 40-year-old piece of legislation needs updated. In Harrow, we are keen to go down the route of Total Place but have run into the legal buffers. What we need is a clear and updated schedule of the kinds of organisations councils are likely to want to combine services with. Is it uncharitable of me to wonder if the Government might not have scoured its own statute books for loopholes before endorsing Total Place? There again, recent history suggests the Government's capacity to hand out unctuous lectures to local authorities on ‘how to do more with less' outpaces its ability to update its own laws. Take the LAML case, in which Harrow LBC (and other local authorities) attempted to form a mutual insurance syndicate. This was successfully challenged by a private insurance company which argued that our modest attempt to secure lower premiums for councils - and hence our residents - was outside the remit of what councils should be doing. After Harrow appealed this decision, the Government amended the law to state that councils could, after all, form insurance syndicates. The point is the terrible paucity of vision here. Rather than admit that the LAML case pointed to the wholesale need to look again at the well-being powers of councils, the Government applied the smallest band-aid it could find to our injury. Whoever wins this year's general election will need to look at this legal restriction on Total Place. Far from being an arcane dispute about sub-clauses in an Act, it is a serious drag on the direction that central Government tells us it wants councils to go in. The standard of Total Place is flying high and we want to advance to beneath it. But until we can get an updated version of the 1970 Act, that advance is in danger of stalling.

Title

WHITEHALL

Great idea but what about the small print?

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING