All we want from Westminster.........

The new government must deliver a fresh settlement for local government which restores public faith and democratic accountability. The current relationship between central and local government is creaking under the weight of its own contradictions, and is in real need of some repair. At present, the central state assumes responsibility for issues over which it has no real control, while local councils remain marginalised with little informed public scrutiny of their major, strategic functions. As a result, our public institutions are badly misunderstood and the public's trust in them has fallen. Furthermore, public service and democratic institutions have made themselves vulnerable to soothsayers who preach anti-politics. For these reasons, the status quo is in real need of change, and it is in our country's interest that we create a new settlement between local and central democracy which can reduce public expenditure, tackle deep social economic and environmental challenges, and rebuild confidence in democracy. But we must do more than repair the old two-dimensional picture. The governance of Britain is multi-dimensional, and we need to capture the multiple interests at play. Claiming exclusive responsibility in this new world is as bad as claiming no responsibility at all. We are all in this together, and our governance must recognise the interlinking – separate but complementary – roles of a range of democratic and public institutions, as well doing more to recognise and value the groups from wider civil society. This means bold but well-planned change. A new settlement must mean clear spending plans for the next four years. The political debate during the election campaign shied away from the real financial challenges. The price of this delay cannot be an unplanned and inefficient short-term slash. Real reductions need proper preparation. A new settlement should also mean area-based budgeting to bring decision-making to levels where it can really make a difference. A genuine area-wide approach would enhance collaboration, increase democratic legitimacy and reduce service overheads. In other words, more for less. A new settlement needs a new approach to localism. Localism isn't about a power grab from local government. Localism is about government recognising and respecting local needs and priorities. This has implications for the system of audit and inspection, too. External challenge is a key element to the ongoing transformation of public services, but the present system is swollen and expensive. We need a leaner system focused on improvement. And, of course, a genuine localist agenda is about more than local government. Localism is about supporting change from the bottom up – about handing power back to local people. Localism is a movement as much as a policy. And, sustainable movements need strong institutions. Political parties, parliaments, local councils are some of the institutions that our democracy is built around, and a localist government needs effective local government. A new settlement must mean respect for public service employees. In recessionary times, people rely on public services more, not less. So we need to make sure we have talented people with the commitment and the imagination to deliver innovative and quality services. We will not do this if political debate caricatures their vocation and demeans their status. As the Institute for Leadership and Management put it recently: ‘Policy-makers need to recognise that public sector managers can be allies in this campaign, and must not see them as a barrier to achieving their goals.' This all means we need a settlement founded on innovation and collaboration rather than instruction and compliance. There is a huge appetite for change in local government. Things can and should be different. And what's more, we cannot afford for things to remain the same. SOLACE members appreciate more than most just how challenging the future financial context is going to be and they will be an essential part of successfully reordering public services in this context. We hope the new government will recognise local government as part of the solution and work with us, as government in the frontline, a partner to deliver better services at a price we can afford. Mike Bennett is deputy director general of SOLACE Local government is facing its most challenging period for a generation. The overwhelming message from all parties in the general election campaign has been the need for huge savings in public spending to tackle Britain's budget deficit. Councils throughout the country are getting an idea of what lies ahead. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has revealed that those government departments whose funding is not protected could see a 25% cut in real terms over the lifetime of the new parliament. Conventional ways of achieving efficiencies, such as councils sharing back-office functions, will no longer be enough. We need to transform the way the public sector works. There must be a bonfire of bureaucracy which, all too often, strangles local innovation, a radical scaling back of the quango state, and devolution from the centre to the people who know their areas best. Our message is clear. Town halls are experts in efficiency and are closest to the people they represent in cities, towns and villages across the country. If there are difficult decisions to be made, they are best taken by the people on the ground, directly responsible to the families, businesses and individuals who rely on public services. We need to strip away excessive administrative burdens on councils and ensure that money for services goes direct to the local level where it is needed. Too much money is tied up in bureaucracy that should be spent on frontline services. Over the past few months, we have produced practical yet radical proposals to save billions of pounds by slimming down the things that stop councils getting on with their job. Last year, we showed how a bonfire of bureaucracy could save the taxpayer £4.5bn a year, including £400m from reducing data burdens on councils. Total Place pilots have shown what public sector organisations have known for years – that a plethora of different funding streams, targets and regulatory regimes costs money, and fails to deliver joined-up services for people. Councils have long shown themselves to be the most efficient parts of the public sector. Town halls were the first part of the public sector to be hit by the effects of recession, facing a combination of declining income at a time of rising demand for services. Local government is ready with the ideas to help the incoming government tackle the great question of our times – how to do more with less. In return, we ask for the freedom to lead the areas we serve so we can deliver ever-more efficient and effective public services for local people. The general election is only the start. Local government is ready to lead the way. Dame Margaret Eaton is chair of the Local Government Association In the run-up to the election, all the major parties promised greater devolution to local communities. The commitment to stimulate choice and voice among our fellow citizens sat alongside manifesto commitments to bolster the role of local authorities. As ever in this debate, there is some tension in how these two aspirations are balanced – and some bemusement when councils are not seen as central to the encouragement of wider civic action. Local councils will be vital in helping empower communities. They have the knowledge, assets, resources, contacts and intelligence that will make groups of citizens more likely to succeed in improving local areas. London has some of the best-performing local authorities in the country, and some outstanding examples of councils and councillors working with local people and local communities, enabling these groups to make a difference to things they care about. This record was at the core of the cross-party Manifesto for Londoners launched by London Councils. The proposals we put forward would help ensure local authorities secure even better services, and give Londoners more say over issues affecting their everyday lives. They would also help produce significant savings.Our suggestions include integrating non-acute care budgets of primary care trusts with all other local care services by ensuring that local authorities have accountability for commissioning services, and devolving Jobcentre Plus programmes and other national and regional back-to-work schemes to groups of boroughs. These proposals will allow the boroughs to deliver co-ordinated support packages tailored to the needs of the people we serve. These steps are needed, if we are going to help more Londoners find jobs, feel safe on the streets, improve their local areas or get the healthcare they need. London's boroughs are critical to helping mobilise individuals and communities across the capital as well as joining up local public services to offer a better deal that will help in coping with severely-reduced resources. Councils being at the heart of offering more say, more voice and greater choice for individuals and communities is key to what we want from the new government. John O'Brien is chief executive of London Councils First and foremost, it is important that any new CLG secretary of state is a passionate advocate not just for localism but for local government itself. Too often, ministers speak of localist policies in relation to neighbourhoods, communities and individuals, but not town halls. Most new governments instinctively like to centralise, so it will be vital to have a strong voice for devolution within the Cabinet. Realistically, the first 18 months – at least – of the new secretary of state's job will be dominated by discussions, some might say battles, with the Treasury over budget cuts. As a non-protected department, CLG is likely to bear the brunt of spending reductions in the next spending review, so policies which are cheap and easy are likely to be given preference within Eland House. To this extent, space in the May Queen's Speech must be given to creating a ‘general power of competence' for local authorities, which would allow good councils to govern more effectively and without undue interference from Whitehall. Second, CLG and the Treasury should publish proposals to allow councils to use reserve and pensions funds, as well as local bond issues to finance new capital finance projects. With capital spending plummeting from 2011, and private investment often difficult to secure, this would allow councils to continue to invest in local infrastructure. Moreover, with a full review of local government finance highly unlikely in the current environment, this would, nonetheless, be a positive first step towards greater fiscal devolution. Finally, pushing forward a new system of powerful city and county mayors could help boost civic leadership and give large areas outside London a louder voice. To reflect the significance of their environments, they should be given additional powers over key local services, such as health and policing. Oh, and a quick plea to whoever is eventually prime minister – please end the system of ministerial merry-go-rounds and allow them to stay in a post for a reasonable amount of time. The modern phenomenon of annual reshuffles and moving a minister just when he or she has actually got to grips with their department does little for effective government. James Hulme is head of communications at NLGN As national politicians hammer out a deal to govern the country, Heather Jameson speaks to three local political leaders about where local government goes from here Richard Kemp Local Government Association (LGA)'s Liberal Democrat group leader, Richard Kemp, told The MJ the association was ‘ready for business with any party or combination of parties' which takes control of central government. He claimed that all the parties had localism in their manifestos, and the LGA would ‘be making an offer to an in-coming government to run with a series of practical projects along the lines of Total Place', in a bid to make savings and run services more efficiently. ‘We would say to an incoming government, "If you really want us to make serious savings, we will be your partner. We will get on with what we can do, we will tell you what needs cultural change from the Government, and we will tell you what needs legislation".' He added: ‘We want to take the leadership of public services in our area. But the biggest pay-off is protecting services for local people.' The Government would win by getting rid of waste at a time when finances are key. Jeremy Beecham Local Government Association's Labour group leader, Sir Jeremy Beecham, said: ‘What is quite interesting is the huge variations, in terms of localities, in terms of the local and national election results. ‘Generally, I would have thought in most unitaries and Mets, and in some of the London boroughs I would have expected us to make significant gains.' But he said the outcome of the general election would not make a huge difference to the political make up of the association. ‘We are about as hung as it's possible to be.' However, he claimed Tory policies for local government – such as police commissioners, directly-elected mayors and education policy – would be more difficult to implement following the election results. ‘This could strengthen the hand of the LGA Tories.' He said the hung parliament would make little difference to the workings of the LGA. ‘A government is a government, whether it is one party or two party – or whatever the political make-up. ‘We will have to persuade them of the virtue of the policies we have at the LGA.' Richard Stay Central Bedfordshire Council deputy leader, Richard Stay, said: ‘I think there are some very serious implications for local government. Quite clearly, the focus of Westminster is going to be on anything but the problems we have to face in local government. We are going to be low priority for central government.' vHowever, he said it was an ‘opportunity' for the sector as well, which would be out of the spotlight for the next few months. He said local government should grasp the opportunity to show it could be ‘grown up' and take control of the Total Place agenda, without waiting for the go ahead from Whitehall. ‘The whole localist agenda does require legislation. I sincerely hope Whitehall does not bunker down and wait for the next election.' He added: ‘There is no doubt that we can no longer afford to site around waiting for the Government to tell us what to do and how to do it.'

Title

WHITEHALL

All we want from Westminster.........

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING