Title

After clashing with Eric Pickles at the recent London Councils' seminar over the real impact of the CSR on next year's budgets, Hackney LBC mayor, Jules Pipe, explains to Heather Jameson why he is keen to get clarity from the secretary of state over exactly what funding councils can expect Following the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), it is perhaps inevitable that council cuts would raise the political temperature between the Government and Labour local authorities. However, what was surprising was the exchange between the urbane and tactful chair of London Councils, Jules Pipe, and the secretary of state for communities, Eric Pickles, at the association's recent conference. Mayor Pipe may be the directly-elected Labour mayor of Hackney, but in his London Councils role he is keen to maintain the political balance. The row erupted after he highlighted a 20% cut in funding for Hackney in the first year of cuts. The calculations, according to Mr Pickles, are pure ‘fiction'. He claims the average loss will be 7.25% in real terms each year for the next four years. But the evidence from other London boroughs would suggest the Hackney figures are closer to what is expected elsewhere. Speaking to The MJ this week, mayor Pipe is keen to maintain this is a straightforward row over the money – not a political bunfight. He is measured and respectful of the secretary of state – but insistent that his figures are right. ‘I think I was speaking for the majority of London councils – not just the Labour ones,' he says. The Conservative authorities might agree, but their hands are tied by political loyalty. There are, he claims, three reasons why the figures could be at odds – given that the full detail of the settlement will not be revealed to councils until next month. They are: there are significant funding streams yet to be announced there will be a re-phasing of the front-loading there will be a significant system of floors. ‘Any of those three things – or a combination of them – would be welcome,' says mayor Pipe. Although they do seem somewhat unlikely. The lack of cash is not just an issue for London authorities, he claims. It is also a problem for other large urban areas with deprivation issues. Under the Government's spending programme, specific grants such as Area Based Grant, Working Neighbourhood Funds and other cash designed to tackle deprivation have been rolled into formula grant. But the London borough mayor claims the figures don't add up – there will be less cash. Under calculations for Hackney, the council will lose £62m in the first year of the cuts. He says: ‘To use the secretary of state's own phrase, "Show me the money". ‘This is based on figures released. There is no indication of further money. Tell us what it is,' says mayor Pipe. He claims a ‘couple of percentage points either way is not a problem', but the difference between seven and 20% cuts is a major obstacle for councils trying to set their budgets. He is not saying either figure is impossible – although front-loading will make life a lot harder – but he is asking for clarity as soon as possible. ‘We would be failing our communities if we didn't say something,' he says. He is also sceptical about some of the options for cash saving put forward by Mr Pickles in a bid to save cash. In the past, he has dismissed calls for directly-elected mayors to run their authorities and do away with council chiefs, and claims it is ‘a very different job'. As for amalgamating councils, he says ‘no amount of super boroughs' will find the cash to meet these cuts. The most high-profile merger to date, of Westminster City Council, Kensington and Chelsea RLBC and Hammersmith and Fulham LBC, has publicly claimed a £100m savings over four years. Privately, the figure being quoted is £10-15m per borough in that time – so closer to £45m. ‘I'm not saying you should do it. The sum of £15m is a worthwhile saving to make. But it's a big step for that amount of savings.' But he adds: ‘Good luck to them.' In Hackney, he is looking at back-room functions, but he says: ‘We wouldn't rule anything out.' The difficulty he faces is the timescale. With front-loaded cuts, it will be far harder to achieve. ‘Even the most radical solutions are totally at odds with the timescale,' he says. ‘Efficiencies need to be planned and implemented properly, not just a slash and burn of services.' And the Government's spending policies don't help the matter. ‘A huge grant cut doesn't act as a catalyst for efficiencies – it undermines the process.' Inevitably, the cuts will mean getting rid of staff – some of whom are ‘oil in the machine' of local government. Mayor Pipe claims it is a fine balancing act to make the right cuts. He explains: ‘We have to be mindful of where were start crossing the line between efficiency and undermining productivity.' Some of the publicity surrounding the cuts agenda has not been helpful, painting a picture of overly bureaucratic organisations wasting taxpayers cash. ‘Bureaucracy shouldn't be a dirty word,' he says. Bureaucracy in children's services helps to keep children safe.' He says the same is true of managers, he says. ‘We can't have everyone working on the frontline without any leadership or management.' In the next month or so, we will find out who had the right figures as the picture of local government funding becomes clearer. By then, the battle between mayor Pipe and the secretary of state will have moved on, but the challenges ahead for councils to cut costs will still remain. The question is, by how much?

Title

WHITEHALL

Show us the money, Eric, says Pipe

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING