Whichever system of community ownership we choose, public assets should not be allowed to drift into the hands of special interests groups, says Paul O'Brien Reading the local government White Paper Strong and Prosperous Communities is a bit like watching the latest thriller on DVD: it's enjoyable in places, but some of it may give you nightmares. The paper's praise for the progress that local government has made in recent years is welcome, as is the balance of focus between strategy and service delivery, and the move towards self-regulation. However, the underlying emphasis on choice being driven by the 'marketisation' of services and community ownership of assets, reawakens some old demons. One of the most paradoxical elements of the White Paper is that it calls on local authorities to be community leaders, co-ordinators of public services and place shapers, and at the same time to fragment the asset base that makes this possible. Many authorities now have in place asset management strategies that join up public sector infrastructure across their boundaries and show great potential for creating economies of scale across public services. This information also allows for long-term strategic decision-making on self-supported borrowing that can create the revenue necessary to make sustained investment and efficiency savings at the same time. This is a fact recognised not only in the White Paper but also by Sir Michael Lyons. But when it comes to rationalising these assets and making the hard decisions on closures for the overall long-term public good, who is going to make the tough calls? The erosion of local authorities' asset portfolios by transferring them to community ownership will divest authorities of the ability to make strategic decisions on investment and give it to those who may have no interest, knowledge or mandate to do so on behalf of the community as a whole. Managing and maintaining multi-million pound assets is a job for trained professionals who are accountable to the local area as a whole, not an individual special-interest group who, at best, could be run by enthusiastic amateurs and, at worst, could by extremists. Public assets and there use should be subject to the principles of probity, accountability and transparency. I am sure that many of us will be familiar with establishments run by committees where the loudest noise of the evening is the £1 coins jangling in committee members pockets as they make their way home, having skimmed the gaming machines when they emptied them at the end of the evening. Of course, this is minor fraud on any scale, but it's an indication of what can occur when systems and processes are not sufficiently robust to thwart those who see an opportunity to enhance their own ends. I could be wrong. Maybe the stories about security firms being set up by public funds as fronts for illegal activities and community halls being used almost exclusively by individual groups to the detriment of others are media hype. Nevertheless, the health, safety and wellbeing of local communities is not something that can be left to chance. Press reports recently suggested that the Government would counter some of these problems by only allowing community ownership in more affluent areas. But surely this is taking social control to a new level. And who has the right to decide whether one religious group or sector of society is more likely to abuse the use of assets more than another. Parochial attitudes and selfishness aren't a function of how much money you have in your pocket. We actually have a system of community ownership of assets in place in this country at present: local government manages these assets on the public's behalf. This gives me the confidence to sleep soundly at night. Paul O'Brien is chief executive of the Association for Public Service Excellence
