With the Government's deadline for submissions for reorganisation upon us, the reality of the big changes facing the sector has become that much more tangible. By the end of this Parliament, the council map in England will look markedly different: several two-tier areas will have gone, and more of the country will be covered by strategic authorities.
While local government reorganisation and the English devolution agenda are distinct, they share a common purpose in government's eyes. It wants to reorganise the local state to deliver growth and sustain effective public services. Public service reform is a major part of this agenda, even though the White Paper mentions it only in passing.
This suggests that a more fundamental shift in attitude and approach than just moving lines around on a map is afoot. The new institutions that we are about to create – on a scale unprecedented in the past 50 years – will look quite different, and will need to behave differently, to the institutions they replace.
At the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny we have been thinking about this shift – and it will be a major theme for our annual conference, to be held this week in Birmingham. Since the publication of the White Paper we have been talking to officers and members in councils about to undergo structural changes, as well as those with more mature unitary, and combined authority, arrangements in place.
A common theme is the importance of ‘place governance', or ‘system governance'. This is about recognising that while individual institutions have their own governance systems, the ‘place', in totality, usually doesn't. And this is a shortcoming if we want to reform in the way that government expects. This goes beyond just reorganisation and the devolution agenda.
Place governance is important when we want to make sure that partners are working together with the same priorities and objectives in mind, and that they have a common understanding of what success looks like. In mature forms, place governance also includes mechanisms for pooled budgets.
Mayors will need to be tested against their ability to deliver as ‘place governors'– as convenors and relationship builders. Given the importance of this role, it will also mean that we must look at the public scrutiny of this model of place governance
This alignment does not come about naturally. Individual institutions have lots of reasons – especially in constrained financial circumstances – to retreat into organisational silos. At a panel discussion on local government reorganisation hosted by the Institute for Government in early March, panellists talked about the need for ‘muscle memory' – essentially the need for this kind of place-based thinking to become a habit, a norm. Governance systems should be part of supporting this change.
But why can't mayors just do it all on their own? As local leaders they are empowered to knock heads together, to ‘convene' as the diplomatic language puts it. And that is what the best mayors have done.
Firstly, as we noted in research published last year with the law firm Trowers & Hamlins, mayors require a unique blend of personal characteristics to be effective.
And, even with the requisite qualities as leaders, they'll need to be supported by a governance framework that recognises how convening works and how it creates value for money and wider impact for the strategic authority. Mayors will not hold all the power – they will be one partner amongst many at local level. They will be an important player, but for the foreseeable future they won't be able to ‘direct' what other public service partners do.
As such, mayors will need to be tested against their ability to deliver as ‘place governors'– as convenors and relationship builders. Given the importance of this role, it will also mean that we must look at the public scrutiny of this model of place governance.
We have been developing the idea of local public accounts committees as a part of the framework that can drive forward and champion place-based working – framed by an area-wide understanding of value for money. It is an idea the Government, in the White Paper, has picked up and says it intends to explore. In truth, though, making this work will be about a radical shift of mindset – and a ceding of power by those who currently hold it. And a more joined up approach to accountability that recognises that priorities and impacts don't stop at institutional boundaries.
Ed Hammond is deputy chief executive of the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny
