Memorandum by Somerset County Council
(BOP 07)
I am responding to the invitation to local authorities
to submit evidence to inform the above Inquiry.
1. Since 1997, when the Labour administration
signed up to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, local
government has responded positively to the opportunities offered
by a series of enabling legislative changes. In particular local
authorities have risen to the challenge of putting their well-being
powers into practice to bring about changes which local people
want to see. The following practical examples give you a flavour
of how we are using our well-being powers in Somerset:
We have created an Active Living Service as part
of mainstreaming our successful POPP project and have 61 Active
Living Centres serving local communities throughout Somerset.
They are run by local community groups, with most being sustained
entirely by local volunteers. Core funding for the centres is
provided by a joint fund established by the County Council and
Somerset PCT. Age Concern Somerset continues to play a key role
by ensuring that local clubs and groups are linked into the wider
active living network within their area. The service is overseen
by a multi-agency steering group.
The County Council has used its land assets as
a driver of re-generation in economically vulnerable communities
and acted as facilitator to broker agreement between a wide range
of agencies. This example relates to an exciting development situated
in the coastal market town of Minehead. The key site development
includes 13,000 square feet of high quality business workspace,
public realm improvements to a prominent town centre site, additional
tourism facilities including the landmark re-installation of the
railway turntable and, potentially, a young peoples' centre. This
is a £6.5 million scheme, with significant leverage
of RDA and European funding plus active community engagement with
its concept and design.
The County Council led the initiative to drive
up the adoption and application of broadband and e-commerce. Somerset
has been transformed from a position of competitive disadvantage
to the most e-connected shire county in England. We have achieved
value added by brokering and co-ordinating the activities of various
public and private sector bodies in this sphere.
Somerset Fuel Poverty Partnership
An example of the PCT, DWP, the Centre for Sustainable
Energy and Somerset local authorities working together to reach
the maximum number of vulnerable people and make it easier for
them to access support and advice.
2. So what simple changes could be made
in allowing us greater freedom to deliver our vision and ambition
for Somerset? I would reflect that although many of the legislative
changes over the last 10 years set out to be enabling, arguably
the much closer inspection regimes and fundamental dependence
of local government on central government funding with its attached
controls means that local authorities are less able to do things
on a local basis which fully reflect local needs and aspirations
for fear of losing funding, breaching central grant conditions
or slipping in the assessment tables.
3. A practical example of central funding
controls relates to the recurrent capital grant for community
safety. Most community needs are revenue rather than capital and
the flexibility to spend the grant at a local level on either
revenue or capital would enable local authorities to respond more
effectively to local circumstances whilst delivering improved
outcomes.
4. With regard to the central performance
regime we welcome the move from Corporate Performance Assessment
to the Comprehensive Area Assessment. The new framework is broadly
sensible and we support a more integrated approach to inspection
and a reduction in key indicators. However, if the new performance
framework is to succeed then it is important that successful authorities
are trusted to get on with delivery and not subjected to micro
management with time and capacity distracted and diluted by a
lack of joined up processes between central and regional agencies.
Already we are seeing a plethora of self assessment requirements
emanating from the Audit Commission, Government Office and Regional
Efficiency and Improvement Partnership.
5. In the past the allocation of functions
has felt somewhat piecemeal and we would welcome a more coherent
programme for the future. For example, why are the local decision
making processes on whether someone gets planning permission or
a liquor licence (sometimes for the same premises) fundamentally
different? It seems that every statutory function has a different
statutory scheme under which it is operated and the methodology
changes between functions and over time in a way which isn't helpful
or often practical, locally.
6. It would be helpful for any future devolution
or transfer of functions to be achieved through a consistent framework.
The developing of an integrated tool-kit of best practice business
design processes which can be used to devolve any further decision
making to a local level would be a step forward.
7. In addition, many initiatives emerge
from central government direct to local government with each council
taking a view whether to respond and in what way without the opportunity
to consider a sector led approach. A good example of this is the
Local Employment Partnership (LEP) scheme which supports disadvantaged
people into work. This County Council was amongst the first to
respond and others have since followed. However, early brokerage
between the central government, relevant central departments,
key agencies and local government would have helped to give this
initiative real traction in the sector, avoiding a more piecemeal
approach. The LGA is well positioned to make a significant contribution
here.
In summary, it would be helpful for the Committee's
review to consider the extent to which the change agenda envisaged
by the European Charter has been delivered—this could inform
the scope of future devolution.
30 September 2008
| 
