Memorandum by Warwickshire County Counil
(BOP 14)
ABOUT WARWICKSHIRE
COUNTY COUNCIL
The county of Warwickshire lies to the south
and east of the West Midlands conurbation in a two-tier local
authority area with five District/Borough areas.
The County Council serves a population of some
526,700 people. The population has been growing for the past
three decades and is now home to 69,000 (15%) more people
than at the start of the 1970's. Despite the focus of population
within the main towns of the County, a significant part of Warwickshire
is rural in nature. The population of Warwickshire is projected
to reach a total of 637,400 by 2031.
SUMMARY
— The Council welcomes the opportunity
to respond to this Inquiry. It believes that whilst central and
local government have complementary roles they are currently out
of balance. The Council endorses the response of the County Council's
Network and West Midlands Local Government Association.
— The Council believes increased freedom
and flexibility for local government is the best way to secure
improved and cost effective local services. That local government
should be given a general power of competence to allow innovative
solutions to be found. This would reduce the regulatory/legislative
burden which currently surrounds local government.
— The Council also believes that central
government needs to recognise that local government is the centre
of local democratic accountability and it needs to be empowered
accordingly in relation to other local public services.
FURTHER DEVOLUTION
1. It is probably true to say that at the
moment local government does not take the full role it should
in determining local priorities and solutions. Local priorities
are overridden by a concentration on national priorities which
are then micro-managed by central government through a host of
regulatory provisions, performance targets and statutory guidance.
2. Whilst local government needs to be more
assertive with central government, central government also needs
to relax its controls to allow local government to take its place
as a true partner. This requires a greater level of trust from
government and with it the freedom for local government to find
local solutions. Local authorities want to be contributors and
implementers of high level policy where we create solutions fit
for purpose.
3. A more focussed leaner regulatory/innovation
industry which is made to work together, could replace the current
universal micromanagement with targeted risk management. "One
size fits all" targets and performance measures do not allow
for local variation or differences in local priorities. Variation
in service delivery is not necessarily a negative but a positive
reflection of the differences between communities.
4. Whilst the principles behind local area
agreements are welcomed in practice they are a classic example
of the skewing of local decision-making to meet national drivers
rather than local priorities. Central government needs to reduce
further the amount of targets and performance measures set for
local government if there is to be any real opportunity for local
choice. Alongside this the other public service partner agencies
need similar levels of freedom to allow them to participate fully
in finding solutions at a local level. Whilst the LAA and partnership
working is high on the DCLG agenda we are not so sure that a similar
level of importance is attached by other government departments.
5. Local Authorities still do not have a
general power of competence. Whilst the well-being powers and
the general power to contract go someway towards this aim local
government is still often bedevilled by a complexity of legislation
that inhibits confidence in innovation. A general power of competence
would put local authorities on a firm footing for moving forward
in partnership with others, provide confidence in its ability
to respond and deal with local issues. It would also remove the
need for some of the tortuous legislation that currently exists.
6. Central government and local government
both have a democratic mandate. Other public services should be
accountable to local government as the democratic centre at the
local level. The increase in partnership working in order to achieve
local integrated solutions has left a democratic deficit in the
accountability of local decision-making.
7. Current systems of accountability for
health and police services fail because they are too complicated
and fragmented for the citizen to understand, for example, health
accountability is largely to the Secretary of State and then at
a local level there are Local Strategic Partnerships, Health Overview
and Scrutiny Committees, Local Involvement Networks, Non-Executive
Directors on NHS trusts and the new Foundation Trust arrangements.
8. Where does the citizen go if there is
a major failure in health or police services at local level or
if dissatisfied with the strategic direction of services? How
do local elected representatives deliver solutions to complex
problems if decisions about local issues are made elsewhere or
ensure that public funds are spent most effectively in their area?
Currently local government is responsible for the delivery of
social care but this is rarely delivered in isolation from health
services. However the ability of local elected representatives
to effect major change in health service spending at a local level
is severely hampered. One option is to give local authorities
responsibility for commissioning local public services to enable
them to manage the complexity of relationships between services.
Further proposals scheduled to be brought forward in the Community
Empowerment, Housing & Economic Regeneration Bill look likely
to further complicate the landscape with proposals for local authorities
to act as community advocates in response to petitions to Primary
Care Trusts.
9. The excellent record of local authorities
in delivering Gershon efficiency savings compared to other parts
of the public sector indicates that political will is a powerful
tool to drive out waste and provide the platform for new ways
of working.
10. Whilst the development of overview and
scrutiny goes some way to providing oversight it is does not provide
any real democratic accountability. Public agencies can effectively
walk away or simply pay lip service to any views expressed. Replacing
scrutiny with a regulatory power located in localities whereby
the public agencies have their joint activities subject to peer
process with an ability to enforce activity shifts across the
public bodies "from the perception of the end user"
would enable more effective solutions at a local level.
11. The duty to co-operate needs to be strengthened
into a duty to deliver outcomes in an integrated way. Other agency
funding needs to be brought into the Area Based Grant vehicle
to ensure monies can be moved around more imaginatively and encourage
those who offer innovation.
12. Overall central government needs to
concentrate on broad outcomes, and leave local delivery to local
government.
FINANCIAL AUTONOMY
13. Currently central government has a heavy
hand on the amount of resources available locally to deliver services.
This influence is in the form of the amount of central government
grant and the limitation of locally raised council tax through
capping. This severely limits the freedoms and flexibilities of
local government.
14. While greater freedom can be exercised
through fees and charges this misses the real issue of a fundamental
redesign of local government funding. Sir Michael Lyons spent
a number of years looking at the problem of local government funding
and it was very disappointing that significant changes did not
materialise from his work.
15. Local authorities should be given greater
freedom to raise income locally and they should be able to deliver
standards of service which reflects the ability and willingness
of the local community to pay. This means central government accepting
that there may be variable standards of service. Although there
may need to be some broad agreement over minimum service levels
-the extent, the how and the way in which services are delivered
should be a matter for local discretion.
16. Local accountability goes hand in hand
with the control of fund raising. Capping undermines the notion
of local accountability. Because of capping local communities
cannot be given the choice of paying more for a higher level,
or wider range, of service.
17. Government is pushing participatory
budgeting at the margins but seems reluctant to allow democratically
elected bodies similar freedoms in determining the priorities
for spending in its area.
18. Local authorities could use charging
and trading more if the legislation were simplified. The legislation
has too many checks and balances which in turn generate uncertainty
and discharge the use of the powers. The Audit Commission report
"Positively Charged" comments quite extensively on the
current use of these powers and some of the constraints and barriers,
including those arising from legislative provisions for example:
"While there are valid reasons for these
restrictions on freedom to charge, they create difficulties for
councils and give rise to considerable debate. It is not always
clear to councils or the public:
— what the rationale is for applying charging
restrictions to some services and not others; for example, why
councils cannot charge for lending printed materials from libraries,
but can charge for lending audio-visual material; or why councils
can make surpluses on charges for parking or cremations but are
restricted to cost recovery in other areas;
— why councils have the power to set their
own charges for services where a uniform approach to charging
might be preferable; for example, those which the public considers
to be necessary, rather than a matter of choice, for the service
user, such as personal care services. This debate is heightened
by the distinction drawn between these services and nursing and
health services, which must be provided free of charge; and
— that the original rationale remains valid
given changes in the context in which services are provided; for
example, councils now provide building control services in competition
with approved inspectors, reducing the monopoly position in the
market which originally justified a price control.
Even where, as in the case of nationally set
fees, the rationale is clear, to ensure a uniform approach to
charging across the country, there can be significant financial
consequences for councils that in turn impact, unequally, on local
taxpayers. In the case of fees for planning applications, the
government's own research reports that fees commonly fail to provide
full recovery of the costs to councils of the activities they
are required to undertake".
EXISTING POWERS
19. Local government services currently
tend to be more nationally than locally driven through a plethora
of regulation, ring fenced resources, centrally driven targets
and guidance. Educational provision in particular is bound by
significant levels of prescriptive guidance which considerably
limit the ability to make local choices. An example is the guidance
and regulations around proposals to establish post 16 provision,
but there are many others. The fact that Local Area Agreements
have 16 mandatory education indicators speaks for itself.
How do we encourage people to engage in local democracy and empower
communities to believe they can make a difference when there is
this level of prescription?
20. There is a lack of trust in the way
central government currently approaches local government and the
messages from the various departments are mixed. While the government
is currently pursuing an agenda to empower people, promote democracy,
and encourage local authorities to become "place shapers"
it is also consulting on proposals to hold public elections for
members of police authorities. Why complicate when you can simplify
the arrangements at a local level and allow local government to
take its proper place as the centre of democratic accountability?
What sort of message does it send to the public about local government
when central government ignores the democratic representatives
which already exist to create new ones?
21. If local government are to be place
shapers they need to be given the tools to do this. You cannot
empower people effectively without empowering local democratic
structures. The barriers to effective place shaping are well known.
Partners who sign up to common local targets then struggle to
maintain a focus on local relationships and priorities because
of sudden changes in top down direction, organisational barriers
which prevent local services integrating to meet local needs.
These are further compromised by financial complexities which
prevent decisions being implemented. Continual restructuring proposals
in other parts of the public sector (notably health) distract
from the partnership agenda.
22. Local authorities should have a general
power of competence. They should be able to create arms length
"Foundation Trusts" not dissimilar to the NHS model
nationally, eg in the areas of Children's Services, Adult &
Primary Health Care, Sustainability, if that is what the local
solution requires.
23. A general power of competence could
be accompanied by a general power to charge which could remove
some of the complexities in the system. Central government would
only need to legislate where charging should be prohibited supported
by clear policy reasons. It would then be for the local authority
to decide how and in what other circumstances it would levy charges
for services.
24. Relationships between central and local
government could be improved through the provision of an integrated
training and development programme for local government officers
and civil servants. This would make inter-changeability much easier
with long term aim of a single workforce model.
CONCLUSION
— The Council believes that whilst central
and local government have complementary roles they are currently
out of balance.
— The Council believes increased freedom
and flexibility for local government is the best way to secure
improved and cost effective local services. That local government
should be given a general power of competence to allow innovative
solutions to be found. This would reduce the regulatory/legislative
burden which currently surrounds local government.
— The Council also believes that central
government needs to recognise that local government is the centre
of local democratic accountability and it needs to be empowered
accordingly in relation to other local public services.
September 2008
| 
