Memorandum by the London Borough of Camden
(BOP 06)
I refer to your letter of 20 August 2008, asking
local authorities for:
— practical examples of how your council
is using existing powers. such as the power of wellbeing, to deliver
changes that local people want to see; and
— what simple changes, such as removing
barriers or a piece of regulation from the centre, could be made
to allow greater freedom in delivering our ambitions or vision
for the council.
I hope that this response is helpful in informing
the work of the select committee, and indeed, any wider debate
on this issue.
EXISTING WELLBEING
POWERS
There are only a few examples where Camden explicitly
invokes the well-being power, but it is implicit in much that
we do. For instance, we are under no statutory duty to undertake
activities that promote economic development in the borough. Yet
the council has, and continues to, focus on combating worklessness,
arguably an implicit use of the power of wellbeing. We also lead
the LSP and LAA delivery, and are focusing on healthy neighbourhoods,
and pushing both the council and other organisations to respond
to feedback from local people.
The explicit example that comes to mind was
in supporting residents against the developers at St Pancras over
24 hours tunnelling. This not only succeeded but won prizes
for the Council afterwards.
BARRIERS TO
FURTHER PROGRESS
Whilst central government will rightly claim
that new LAAs, the new performance framework and less ring-fenced
funding have gone a long way toward delivering devolution, examples
of prescription and unnecessary regulation from the centre doggedly
remain. This "command and control" mentality continues
to stifle local innovation. Often, "opportunities" given
to local government feel like they are matters which have proven
too difficult for central government to arrive at a conclusion
about, and so the solution has been to give local determination.
Central departments need to do what they expect
local authorities to do, eg. join up, work together and communicate.
Work underpinning the developments of LAAs, and the progression
of initiatives such as the Lifting the Burdens Task Force, show
that issues such as the burden of the performance reporting culture
are recognised, but in practice central departments often continue
to work in silos, and see their priorities as the most important
across the piece. There is little evidence of the much-vaunted
"earned autonomy" for the highest performing authorities.
There is also a very real issue that as resource allocation becomes
tighter, there needs to be greater consideration of how resources
in the "watching" area can be released and redirected
to the frontline.
It is probably also useful to note that other
frameworks also have a direct impact on the effective and efficient
running of local government. For example, The Employment Law framework
has a number of unnecessary burdens that prevent flexibility and
create practical problems. A significant example of this is the
Code of Practice on Workforce Matters. This statutory guidance
adds costs and doesn't achieve what it sets out to achieve.
CENTRAL REGULATION
AND CONTROL:
CAMDEN CASE
STUDY
As an example of some of the issues raised above,
in Camden the council and the police have been working together
to develop better links between our local area forums and Safer
Neighbourhood Panels. Some residents have questioned why the same
issues are being discussed in two different types of meetings
within the same ward. Often residents are unsure which meeting
is best for them to attend to discuss their community safety concerns.
We want to create a clearer picture for residents to ensure they
are better informed and better able to influence local decisions
and actions around community safety. It is sensible that we do
this through the neighbourhood engagement mechanisms that we have
developed in Camden.
We recognise that this aim is consistent with
national government policy direction which is focussing on greater
joined up working between public services at neighbourhood level,
and specifically closer integration of neighbourhood policing
with local authority-led neighbourhood management. Within this
context, Louise Casey's recent offer to the council to work with
us to support better integration of service delivery and engagement
on local crime is very welcome. With the offer, however, comes
an unnecessary degree of prescription in terms of how the council
and police will deliver these aims—to the point of setting
out, in all but name, a job description for a new post.
The consequence of this may be that Camden is
not able to align and integrate area forums and SNPs in the way
that would most make sense for the council, the police and local
residents. This ultimately undermines local partnership working
and does not deliver the best and most locally appropriate forms
of community engagement.
LETTING GO
OF THE
REINS: CAMDEN
CASE STUDY
The preventing violent extremism funding is
part of the new area based grant and therefore un-ringfenced.
Councils are, in theory, free to allocate the money to priorities
in their particular area, although there is an assumption from
government that it will be directed towards the Muslim community.
Recently through the Government Office for London (GOL) there
have been worrying signs that reporting requirements are being
introduced that exactly mirror requirement that previously existed
under the old ringfencing system. In particular, informal announcements
have been made by the by Government Office for London that councils
will be required to account to government for their spending at
the end of the year.
CONCLUSION
Camden supports greater freedom for councils
and their local partners to innovate in how they meet the big
challenges for their areas, in exchange for greater accountability
for their actions and the consequences. This "freedom to
be accountable" approach will mean councils can no longer
look to central government to "bail them out" or to
"pass the buck (or blame)". But it also means central
government will need to stop micro-managing processes, such as
the examples mentioned above, and judge councils' success by outcomes.
29 September 2008
| 
