As the Department for Communities and Local Government reflects on the challenges of replacing the ODPM, we are presented with an opportunity to revisit two fundamental questions – what powers can effectively be devolved to neighbourhoods? And what will this cost? The possibility of convincing central government and parliament of the value of neighbourhoods hinges on these persistent themes. The neighbourhoods agenda is up for grabs. The double devolution agenda, first prescribed by David Miliband, will almost certainly develop as new minister Ruth Kelly strives to make her mark on the first local government White Paper in five years. Most services seemingly-transcend neighbourhood control. Small units, such as neighbourhoods will, realistically, never have control over strategic and transport planning. These functions depend on their large scale and interaction with other strategic priorities and political imperatives. Besides, do local people really want to directly control services? Evidence from the Electoral Commission suggests that people want more influence over service delivery and greater political representation. These are markedly different aspirations. Citizens are far more likely to sign a petition or attend a demonstration than analyse the legal implications of a waste-collection contract. Also, many people will not have the skills nor confidence to be involved in direct neighbourhood control. Such an approach could, therefore, have a disengaging rather than an engaging effect for excluded groups. However, some level of direct influence over a few services might be successfully devolved. The desires of groups of citizens to vary the design of waste collection and parks maintenance in their neighbourhood, for example, could be expressed through a neighbourhood councillor. Such influence would require a hitherto unrealised degree of flexibility from service providers, as well as a high level of knowledge and understanding of neighbourhood circumstances from the neighbourhood councillor. Therefore, the direct influence of neighbourhood units over the design of some services could be established without the need for a high level of confidence among all local residents. The establishment of a wider influence over all services would require a neighbourhood councillor to have the clout to take on the local executive where it fails to deliver. Incorporating outcome-based neighbourhood-level standards into Local Area Agreements (LAAs) would give such influence, if coupled with appropriate penalties for failure. This approach would not require building a costly administrative structure, as was the case with experiments in Islington and Walsall 20 years ago. Nor would it demand the active participation of thousands of unpaid and unelected citizens in negotiating contracts and managing officers. However, there would be costs. Neighbourhood councillors would need some officer support and neighbourhood variation suggests the loss of some economies of scale. Economies of integration offer the chance of compensating for these loses. Every interaction between suppliers and users implies information and, if reliably captured, efficiency can be powerfully encouraged. The joining-up of services at a neighbourhood level can also save money in the long run by catching small problems early and ensuring they do not develop into big, expensive ones down the line. Any increased costs would not be incurred in a vacuum. Rather, they would be set against the backdrop of wide-ranging reform. The Local Government Association recently suggested that reform of the performance-assessment framework would save the taxpayer, annually, £2.5bn. Supplanting the current top-down approach to performance assessment with a bottom-up solution could achieve significant savings. The guiding aim of the neighbourhoods agenda should be to drive down power to the neighbourhood level. This is not done through direct ownership and control. Indeed, such an approach could further marginalise vulnerable groups. Instead, the effective political representation of the neighbourhood unit can be a powerful tool for communicating citizens’ views, as well as for influence over the design and delivery of services. n James MacGregor is a researcher at the New Local Government Network think-tank
