Memorandum by Kent County Council (BOP
16)
Kent County Council (KCC) welcomes the opportunity
to respond to the Communities and Local Government House of Common
Select Committee Inquiry on the Balance of Power: Central and
Local Government.
As a 4 star local authority, KCC has pushed
to the limits what we are able to deliver and achieve for local
people within the current boundaries set by central government.
Covering a population of 1.4 million, overseeing a gross
budget of £2.2 billion and with a string of successful
inspections of services under our belt, we would like our record
of achievement rewarded through a process of genuine empowerment.
We believe that the balance of power is unfairly
cast towards the national and regional tier, at the expense of
local democracy, accountability and voter turnout.
As a 4 star authority, KCC calls for:
— devolution of powers, functions and expenditure
from the national and regional tiers on economic development areas
such as transport, skills and planning to sub-regions and individual
councils through a process of "earned autonomy";
— national government to set the framework
of minimum standards, and let local people hold local authorities
to account;
— recognition from central government that
local authorities need to undertake economic development—and
not economic assessment only as indicated in the Sub-National
Review—in order to properly fulfil our place-shaping role
and exercise our powers of wellbeing in the economic, social and
environmental arenas;
— high performing upper tier authorities
to be able to bid to run other public services such as health,
probation, prisons and policing within their localities;
— central government to trust well
performing councils to take on greater powers and to make real
inroads in reducing welfare spending for people of working age,
provide skilled workforces to match the demands of local economies
and take full control over economic development in their areas;
— control of Incapacity Benefit to be handed
to upper-tier authorities to ensure close coordination with welfare-to-work
programmes;
— local government to be strengthened and
empowered with improved financial autonomy. This would include
a return of the National Non-Domestic Rate to local authorities,
enabling councils to attract particular industries to their areas
and thereby create a competitive edge;
— the budgets of local authorities, regional
and local public agencies be pooled through the Area Based Grant,
linked to joint objectives and outcomes outlined in Local Area
Agreements and Multi-Area Agreements; and
— a new constitutional relationship between
central and local government, acknowledging and properly empowering
local government to undertake a true "place-shaping"
role.
BACKGROUND
1. KCC has a population of 1.4 million
people and oversees a gross budget of £2.2 billion.
In the past year, the County Council has been awarded the following
accolades: another 4 star rating in its Corporate Performance
Assessment; the highest level four award by the Audit Commission
for its use of resources despite ever tougher criteria; the top
possible rating for Adult Social Services by the Commission for
Social Care Inspection (CSCI) for the sixth consecutive year and
an OFSTED inspection which graded services to children and young
people in Kent as good with "service management and capacity
to improve" rated as outstanding.
2. This string of successful inspections
of KCC's services reflects the expertise, knowledge, capacity
and sound use of resources that reside at county level to provide
personalised, tailor made services designed to meet individual
needs and wishes.
3. KCC believes that localities are best
placed and fully capable of finding and implementing their own
solutions to many of the complex problems that face modern society.
With strong leadership and close collaboration, Kent's local agencies
have agreed shared outcomes and discovered new and effective ways
of meeting the needs of local people. This is why Kent agreed
to pilot the first round of local public service agreements (2001);
pioneered and introduced the Kent Service Board (2004) and in
2005 we were one of 21 pilot local authorities in the
first round of Local Area Agreements. Our objective has been for
KCC to influence the totality of public spending in Kent, some
£7 billion, and to encourage all parts of the public
sector to collaborate in the delivery of local priorities. As
each successive scheme has been negotiated, however, there seems
to be a tension between having narrowly defined targets determined
at the centre, and holding on to the big picture of what it is
we are trying to achieve. This year we signed off Kent Agreement
2, but the tensions remain.
4. We would like to be empowered to do much
more and believe that our track record in delivery earns us the
right to assume strategic decision-making powers on issues currently
determined by executive and regional agencies. We fully back the
approach promoted by the Lyons Inquiry that local authorities
should develop arrangements between themselves to take strategic
decisions on economic development issues like transport, planning
and skills. This must be through a process of "earned autonomy";
and we agree with Lyons' view that central government should test
those arrangements to ensure that they are robust, sensible and
capable of taking hard choices.
STOP MICRO-MANAGING
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
EMPOWER AND
DEVOLVE
5. KCC has fully stretched the boundaries
within which we can operate and we would like to do much more,
dependent on genuine empowerment. Central government must adhere
to the principle of decentralisation with flexibility and innovation
being a key ingredient to outcomes. Underpinning all of this should
be an aspiration to continue to transform some of our public services
to become more outcome focussed and customer centric. Kent would
much rather enter into a serious debate about the half dozen or
so longer term public policy outcomes facing residents in Kent
rather than subject ourselves to the micro management of 35 short
term targets.
6. Local government therefore requires greater
autonomy from regional as well as central government in order
to properly fulfil its place-shaping role and exercise its powers
of wellbeing in the economic, social, environmental and health
arenas. KCC would like to see real devolution from the national
and regional level to local authorities. Multi-functional authorities
and sub-regional partnerships would generate greater efficiencies
and joined-up working in tackling crime, lawlessness, youth and
long-term unemployment and the transition from education to work,
as well as achieve significant reductions in welfare dependency.
7. The Local Government Act 2003 granted
excellent, good and fair councils the power to trade for a profit
by operating any of their ordinary functions through a company
in which the council in question has an interest. Operating under
the same principle, and following on from the Lyons Inquiry, councils
rated as excellent and good should be eligible to run other services
such as health, probation, prisons and policing if they so wish.
It would be a process of "earned autonomy", with central
government able to call back in services if judged by the Audit
Commission to be poorly run. We support the approach the Government
is taking on requiring local authorities to come together at a
sub-regional level in distribution of LABGI and LSC monies, but
we believe that other funding streams should also be devolved
from regional to sub-regional level.
8. However, the Sub-National Review (SNR)
signifies further reinforcement and strengthening of the regional
tier at the expense of local government, although the rhetoric
suggests otherwise. Although we were pleased to see in the SNR
recognition of the importance of local government in the requirement
to undertake an economic assessment of their areas, we also feel
that local authorities have the expertise and capacity to deliver
economic development programmes as was mentioned in the first
version of the SNR.
DEVOLVE AND
CUT WELFARE
SPENDING
9. We believe that a more localised system
of delivering welfare to work programmes could help to make significant
reductions in benefit dependency. In Kent, around £800 million
is spent each year on benefits for people of working age. Significant
decisions on welfare are made nationally with little regard to
local circumstances or need.
10. The Kent Supporting Independence Programme
(SIP) operates to support welfare dependent people back into work
and towards financial independence. It is just one example of
how a national challenge can be effectively addressed by a pioneering
local government programme backed up by coordinated local action
and strong political leadership.
11. A key target in the first Kent Local
Area Agreement was a support programme managed and delivered by
KCC to help long-term Incapacity Benefit (more than two years)
claimants back into full-time work. We have helped at least 105 people
into work in 18 months through the Kent NOW programme. If
we assume that these 105 people had stayed on benefits for
another year, we have saved the public purse £940,000 in
one year. These people instead have actively contributed to the
economy rather than being reliant on Incapacity Benefit, Housing
and Council Tax payments. If we exclude pump-priming and reward
monies from the Kent Local Public Service Agreement to establish
the scheme, the total saving is £590,000.
12. The average length of time an Incapacity
Benefit claim lasts for is nine years. Using this calculation,
getting 105 people off Incapacity Benefit and into work has
saved over £8.1million in benefit payments, all for an initial
outlay of just £350k. Since the Kent SIP was launched in
2002, independent research by Oxford University suggests that
a benefit claimant living in a disadvantaged community which receives
targeted action through the SIP is 30% more likely to exit welfare
dependency than someone living elsewhere in the South East.
13. Greater autonomy for local authorities
to deliver welfare to work programmes would therefore reap benefits
for central government in reducing the overall welfare bill. KCC
calls for a localisation of welfare to work budgets, including
upper-tier authority control of Incapacity Benefit, which would
enable a much more responsive, tailor-made approach to local demands
and circumstances. In addition, benefit savings made locally should
be reinvested into further preventative or back-to-work activity
in the local area. Interventions to meet local conditions (eg
around timings of benefit payments) should be permitted and targeted
towards local priorities and priority groups.
DEVOLVE AND
UPSKILL
14. The Government has acknowledged in the
SNR that economic development can only be achieved through devolution
from the centre to localities, and it needs to do the same with
skills. Upskilling of the workforce is vital to improve the economic
performance of the UK economy and local government needs to be
equipped with the levers to make this happen.
15. If as a country we are to be effective
at meeting the skills challenge, and we accept that the education
and training system needs to be matched to the needs of local
economies to benefit students and employers alike, then it abundantly
clear that the education and training framework needs to be shaped
on a sub-regional basis to match local sub-regional economies.
National or regionally imposed solutions that do not reflect the
real sub-regional economy will not work.
16. However, Education and Skills funding
is also geared towards the regional level at the expense of local
authorities. For example, employer-led Employment and Skills Boards
have been established throughout England. These will play a key
role in promoting economic prosperity at the sub-regional level
through bringing together key partners to provide joint demand-led
solutions for employers within each area. However, Regional Development
Agencies have been tasked to work with local authorities and Education
and Skills Boards to identify priority areas in each local community,
including those for labour force development and employment. However,
small businesses prefer to liaise with organisations that are
closest to them, not remote regional agencies that could be hundreds
of miles away. Local authorities are best placed to take the lead
on working with a range of stakeholders to ensure that skills
needs within localities are addressed and funded.
17. The move towards demand led skills and
training system is welcome, although we have argued that a fully
devolved system to local government would allow both greater transparency
and a more integrated delivery than the system outlined in "Raising
Expectations" can deliver. Central to tackling the skills
agenda is a huge increase in the number of apprenticeships for
young people as a real option to the traditional academic route.
However, the Government's approach has been to establish a national
quango in the form of the proposed National Apprenticeship Service
(NAS) with primarily a regional "field force". Yet,
the reality is that local economies are sub-regional in nature,
and regional and national delivery structures do not have the
local intelligence, flexibility or links to local businesses—especially
Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs)—necessary to understand
local needs and make the system work. In Kent, we have our own
apprenticeship service in the form of Kent Success. Launched in
the autumn of 2006, KCC currently has 130 apprentices within
the organisation and our target is to have 250 KCC apprentices
by 2010. Through the Kent Partnership (our Local Strategic Partnership),
KCC is also actively working across the public, private and voluntary
sectors to promote the employment of 1000 apprentices in
Kent by 2010. Our local scheme has been able to deliver due to
its proximity and relationship building with local partners and
business that just is not possible when delivery is based on a
national and regional scale. We would like to see the role, function
and budget of the National Apprenticeship Service devolved to
local government which is ideally placed to meet the apprenticeship
challenge.
DEVOLVE TRANSPORT
18. We would like to see a significant strengthening
of local government's role in running local transport services.
The current system is also highly confused, with motorways and
trunk roads the responsibility of the Highways Agency and all
other non-private roads the responsibility of upper-tier authorities.
We believe that upper-tier authorities should be granted Highways
Agency powers for non-motorway trunk roads, along with maintenance
budgets and transport planning powers residing within their boundaries.
TRUST AND
EMPOWER LOCAL
GOVERNMENT TO
SPEND ACCORDING
TO LOCAL
NEEDS
19. The Committee has posed a series of
questions about financial autonomy for local authorities. There
is a contradiction at the heart of public service reform since
1997, which is where the real question about the balance of funding
should be addressed. The contradiction lies in the conflict between
a centrally driven target culture reflecting siloed thinking between
Government Departments coming down to local government, and the
joining-up of local services to provide seamless services to the
public. The target culture has been used to drive performance,
but at the same time, the policy challenges that matter most to
people, such as safer streets and healthier lifestyles, depend
on local joining-up of public services. The former have thrived
at the expense of the latter.
20. Delivering joined-up services requires
greater devolution to sub-regions to set priorities and spend
budgets. As part of a deal with central government reflecting
KCC's track record of delivery, we would like to see pooled budgets
in the county between local authorities and public agencies to
spend on preventative health, welfare to work programmes and post-16 education
for example. Whilst we welcome the greater flexibility for local
authorities in allocation of local resources that the Area Based
Grant (ABG) permits, it should include a wider category of revenue
streams to allow for greater coordination between public bodies.
The ABG does not for example include preventative health monies,
although the County Council's Corporate Strategy, Towards 2010,
and Kent's Public Health strategy is targeted towards encouraging
people to exercise and take care of their health. The lack of
a coherent approach between funding streams can inadvertently
provide disincentives to work towards positive outcomes, such
as investing in preventative care of the elderly to avoid hospitalisation.
21. We therefore believe that the ABG should
be administered through Local Area Agreements, which would permit
public authorities in a given area to work together, define their
own priorities and shift policy emphasis where they see fit. A
single funding pot for place shaping and delivering personalised
services would encourage true partnership working between a range
of public agencies to overcome silos and allow greater efficiencies.
Expenditure currently controlled by regional and sub-regional
agencies should be aligned to joint objectives and outcomes contained
within Local Area Agreement and Multi-Area Agreement processes.
22. The failure to provide a joined-up approach
to funding is evident. For example, Accident and Emergency services
are being reduced at Maidstone Hospital and a specialist A&E
service is being developed at Pembury Hospital in Tunbridge Wells.
But transport and access from Maidstone to Tunbridge Wells is
poor, and there is no funding allocated in the Local Transport
Plan to build the desperately needed Colts Hill Bypass which is
essential to enable residents from Maidstone (some 15 miles
away) to get there. The lack of a coordinated and strategic approach
to decision-making occurs when there is a fragmented system of
delivery. As a result, local residents suffer.
TRUST AND
EMPOWER COUNCILS
TO SET
THEIR OWN
SPENDING PRIORITIES
23. Greater financial freedom for local
authorities should be granted through local determination over
the split between capital and revenue funding, with a local power
to vary according to need and to support innovation and allow
people to manage their own care, for example use of innovative
technology to support independent living. KCC's approach is to
support preventative services and equip people with technology
to be able to live independent lives within their own homes for
as long as possible. This requires a move away from the "bricks
and mortar" approach, for example construction of new residential
homes, and towards new technologies that enable people to commission
and procure their own care packages, tailored to meet individual
needs and wishes. Allowing councils greater flexibility over how
they allocate expenditure between capital and revenue streams
is essential to respond to the needs of individual clients. Capital
investment also requires significant ongoing revenue expenditure,
which is increasingly difficult to find in today's troubled financial
climate and with an ever-increasing demand on services. A new
approach to developing services tailored to individuals is therefore
a necessity to ensure that we meet our service obligations.
24. Debate has focussed for many years on
the powers councils should or should not be given to raise a greater
proportion of their expenditure locally. However, we believe that
residents are more concerned about how public money is spent,
regardless of whether it is raised centrally or locally. It is
therefore imperative that local authorities raise their game in
communicating with residents how their money is being spent in
more innovative ways than the annual Council Tax bill. The issue
we feel is more important is that local government should have
greater discretion over how it spends its budgets, so that we
are able to respond to a greater degree to locally defined priorities
rather than centrally prescribed targets.
25. We would however like to see greater
discretion for councils in the levying of National Non-Domestic
Rates (NNDR). In the early 1980s, councils were dependent on central
government for just over half their funding. That figure is now
around 75%. At the end of the 1980s, before business rates were
centralised, 30% of local government income derived from this
source. Although the issue of equalisation would need to be carefully
considered, the NNDR should be re-localised, allowing local authorities
the freedom to vary business rates to attract a range of industries
to locate in targeted areas. For example, if an upper-tier authority
wishes to attract creative or high-tech industries to their area,
they should be equipped with the appropriate levers to attract
such businesses in order to create a competitive advantage for
their local economy. Re-localisation of NNDR must go in hand with
sub-regional devolution as local authorities cannot have a significant
impact over economic development in their areas if one of the
main financial levers is held elsewhere.
26. Capping undermines the principle of
local accountability and should be abolished. Instead, local authorities
should make the case to residents if they feel compelled to raise
local taxation beyond 5 per cent. Capping is seen as an instrument
to threaten and punish local authorities, but delivering service
priorities within an increasingly restrictive funding envelope
requires hard choices between service cuts or increasing council
tax. Local politicians are accountable for their decisions via
the ballot box and that is the exercise of true accountability
and genuine democracy.
EVIDENCE OF
"REGIONALISATION" OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
POWER AND
SPENDING
27. Recent years have seen increasing centralisation
of government funding, particularly in relation to transport.
Any project of £5 million in value (a rough estimate is that
this would buy less than 1km of single carriageway) or more requires
central approval before proceeding and a complex transport planning
environment with local plans assessed centrally for robustness.
Furthermore, the current Regional Funding Advice exercise being
undertaken by the Government signals a further strengthening of
the powers of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). For example,
RDAs have been asked to advise on the £1.3 billion per
year currently allocated to local authorities in "block funds"
for capital highways maintenance and smaller projects to enhance
traffic management, public transport and road safety. The Treasury
document states that these funds should be "allocated in
ways which are consistent with regional strategies as well as
national objectives". This reflects an increasing regionalisation
of local powers and expenditure, which will further curtail the
ability of councils to fulfil their place-shaping role and the
power of wellbeing.
DELIVERING SERVICES
TAILORED TO
LOCAL NEEDS
28. Local authorities have considerable
discretion to deliver services of their own making rather than
central government prescription. In 2007, KCC was the first local
authority in the country to launch Kent TV, an on-line
broadband television channel. It was launched with the desire
to communicate with people on a modern platform and marks a step
change in the way local government communicates with local people
and the wider public.
29. The Kent "Gateway" model,
initiated by KCC in partnership with district councils across
the county, is a uniquely innovative retail-based concept that
seeks to offer seamless access to public services for local people.
Gateway is complementary to web, telephone and traditional home-visiting
and operates on the principle that services follow customer need—not
the other way round. By Spring 2009, seven Gateway centres will
have opened in Kent, offering convenient physical access to front-line
customer advisers and officers from over 30 agencies covering
central and local government and the voluntary sector. Within
five years we would hope that all 12 district areas of Kent
will be covered by Gateways. We would also like to extend services
to private sector partners, for example pharmacies. Services range
from careers advice and help to tackle substance misuse, to smoking
cessation, GP referrals and assistance for victims of domestic
violence, among many others. Internet access and housing and business
advice is also provided along with information on adult education
courses. Gateway is a natural delivery channel for joined up services
from Local Strategic Partnership in line with the place shaping
role of local government. This model seeks to implement the principle
of responsive services and empowered communities as enshrined
in the Local Government White Paper 2006, by devolving power to
communities and giving local people a greater say and influence
over local public services.
30. The Kent Freedom Pass is another
example of innovation in local government in the exercise of the
discretionary power. KCC first introduced the Kent Freedom Pass
scheme in June 2007, providing bus travel free at the point of
use to students aged 11-16 attending school in three pilot
areas. Since then it has proven very successful, encouraging young
people away from car travel and on to Kent's bus network. The
scheme has been extended to a further four pilot areas, with the
entire county being covered by 2009. This has benefits for the
Kent environment and transport system in helping to reduce carbon
emissions and the number of cars on the roads.
31. We have taken the principle of Direct
Payments for social care a step further through an innovative
scheme known as the Kent Card, which makes it easier for
clients to manage their own support by automating the payment
process, thereby improving efficiency and cost effectiveness.
The client card has been developed in partnership with the Royal
Bank of Scotland. It works like a debit card by enabling clients
to pay for services using funds supplied by KCC. The card is supplied
to people with support needs. Cardholders can top up the card
with their assessed contribution or additional money they may
wish to use to pay for their service/support. Because the Kent
Card is VISA badged, it can be used in over 20 million outlets
world-wide and 843,000 outlets in the UK, including online
and over the telephone.
32. At KCC we see our role as empowering
staff and residents to work together to create safer places to
live. For this reason, in 2002 KCC established the Kent Community
Wardens scheme. This began with a band of 12 wardens
as part of a three-year pilot scheme. It delivered such early
success that numbers were increased within six months and in March
2005 a new training centre—the first of its kind in
the UK—was opened to help bring the team of wardens up to
100. Community wardens aim to help the people of Kent to live
safely and independently in their neighbourhoods and communities.
They provide a visible uniformed presence to tackle anti-social
behaviour. Many wardens are regarded as the focal point for the
communities they serve and their mobile telephone number is accessible
to all. Wardens work closely with Police, local authorities and
other agencies and are a useful source of information. Alongside
tackling anti-social behaviour, Community Wardens also raise community
awareness of problems such as bogus callers preying on vulnerable
people in their homes. They address environmental issues such
as fly tipping, graffiti and vandalism and engage with the young,
elderly and vulnerable in activities such as youth clubs and sporting
events, coffee mornings and advice surgeries. If they don't know
the answer to a query, they know someone who will. This scheme
has proved very successful in providing a reassuring presence
to local communities in Kent.
USE OF
TRADING POWERS
33. As already mentioned, well performing
councils have the ability to trade in any of their ordinary functions
by establishing a company in which they have an interest. KCC
was one of the first authorities in the country to take advantage
of this freedom granted under the Local Government Act 2003. KCC
spends more than £840 million on buying goods, services
and works from suppliers every year. We formed KCC Commercial
Services to provide goods and services for the council's own directorates
and for a range of approved public bodies. Some of its services
are also available to local businesses and other commercial companies
and to schools, sports groups and charities. It is a self-funding
unit, tasked to deliver products and services that represent best
value for money and meet local government purchasing legal requirements.
Its staff are experts in their respective fields and provide a
quality service.
34. We now operate a "one-stop shop"
for educational supplies, stationery and some furniture; a complete
design and printing service, with bulk-mailing option; the largest
local authority energy purchasing organisation in the UK—KCC
acts for 70 local authorities and conducts business valued
at £191 million per annum—and provider of energy
management consultancy services; grounds maintenance, landscape
construction and street cleaning services; maintenance and repair
of electronic and electrical equipment, and gymnastic equipment;
fire extinguisher servicing and training; professional passenger
transport procurement for our council services and other users;
supply of lease cars, commercial vehicles and minibuses for local
authorities, schools and other users and provider of vehicle hire
without driver; a wide range of vehicle maintenance, conversion
work and other transport engineering services and Passenger Services
and provision of public and school transport services and vehicle
hire with driver; and minibus and coach driver training.
35. But trading as a publicly owned operator
within a commercial environment has been beset by red tape. For
example, if we wish to purchase goods and services that cost more
than £144,000 we are required under EU procurement laws
to advertise our requirements in the Official Journal of the European
Communities (OJEC). We are then bound to follow strict timescales
and seek at least five tenders before we can proceed with a decision.
In effect, from start to finish the process can take six months
including a two week cooling-off period where we are required
to provide, if requested, feedback to unsuccessful tenderers.
In the meantime, we are not allowed to give the go-ahead to the
successful contractor to proceed until the two week period has
expired. Whilst we appreciate the need to demonstrate fair treatment
and transparency in our processes, local authorities cannot operate
on a level playing field compared to private sector operators
who are not obliged to follow these requirements. To put it into
context, the simple purchase of a coach for our transport arm
has to go through this laborious process. We appreciate that all
public agencies across the EU are subject to this regulatory environment,
but it is an issue of which the Committee needs to be aware in
relation to the limits on local authorities being able to trade
effectively. Private companies are not bound by these procedures
and can operate in an environment relatively free of trading restrictions
compared to local authorities.
APPROACH TO
CHARGING
36. We are opposed to charging for many
services, as we believe that this acts as a double whammy on top
of council tax. It is akin to asking people to pay for services
twice, unless they are very clearly discretionary or new services,
for example charging for elderly care transport. While we could
introduce more charging, we are opposed to it on the grounds that
it tends to impact unfairly on the elderly and disabled that we
want to support. However, sometimes difficult decisions have to
be made between cutting services and introducing/increasing charging.
EXERCISE OF
WELLBEING POWER
37. In relation to exercise of power of wellbeing,
KCC was the first local authority in the country to jointly appoint
with two Primary Care Trusts a Director of Public Health. This
was followed by publication of a Public Health strategy devised
in partnership with the 12 District Councils and two Primary
Care Trusts in Kent. Most of this strategy is aimed at promoting
health whether through improving well-being, preventing disease
or promoting healthy living for those with short and long term
conditions. The document also outlined our commitment to and ongoing
work with parents and the voluntary sector to promote health and
wellbeing in Kent.
38. We have already utilised our power of
wellbeing to provide housing or new types of community homes for
the older population. The multi-million pound Better Homes,
Active Lives Private Finance Initiative (PFI) will deliver
340 units of new social housing for vulnerable people in
Kent. We have procured the project on behalf of and in partnership
with10 local district councils. It is one of the largest
projects of its type in the country and will receive PFI credits
from the Department of Communities and Local Government. The partnership
between the district councils and the county council has provided
a local perspective as well as the strategic capacity to bring
stakeholders needs together within a single project. It is regarded
as a flagship project nationally and we often receive requests
for advice from other local authorities who are looking to undertake
PFI projects in partnership with their neighbouring councils.
The private sector recognises that the partnership has produced
considerable efficiencies in bringing together a number of small
clusters of housing from across local authority boundaries. After
a year of negotiations, Housing 21 has signed a deal with
the partnership between KCC and ten of the district and borough
councils in the county to build and run a total of 340 apartments
across Kent.
39. The power of economic, social and environmental
wellbeing also extends to regenerating areas to attract jobs,
new homes and investment. We were disappointed therefore that
the revised SNR document incorporates an economic assessment
duty rather than economic development duty for local authorities
as published in the first version. Local authorities should be
equipped with full economic development powers in order to fully
exercise this duty as has already been argued here.
THE CENTRAL-LOCAL
CONCORDAT
40. The Central-Local Concordat states that
both central and local government have the responsibility to use
taxpayers' money well and devolve power. In the local arena, however,
local quangos bypass local authorities and are estimated to account
for up to 60% of local public spending. Such bodies include Jobcentre
plus, the Learning and Skills Council, the Housing Corporation,
health trusts, the Environment Agency and others. We do not believe
that this is a sound use of public money nor good news for democracy
and accountability. The SNR does not give local authorities grounds
for significant optimism either regarding the empowerment of councils,
although we welcome the approach towards sub-regional working
as long as it is underpinned by real devolution.
AN INDEPENDENT
COMMISSION TO
OVERSEE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENTS
41. We do not believe that an independent
commission be established to oversee the financial settlement
for local government. This would act to undermine the principle
of accountability of central government to its electors. The elected
administration of the day should explain how and why it has prioritised
expenditure in particular policy and geographical areas.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
POSITION
42. Local Government has no legal mandate
to act as a balance on the powers of central government. Ministerial
prerogative as well as our parliamentary system means that local
government is defined by statute of Parliament with its structure,
composition and function changeable at the behest of the majority
(governing) party. The de-facto protection for local government
arises from central government's increasing dependency on local
government to deliver its programme and priorities, the unpopularity
of local government reform per se with the public who have affinity
and connection with their local councils, and the financial costs
of local government reform often outweigh the net financial benefits
in the short-medium term. However, none of the above is a de-jure
means of protecting local government, as the recent local government
reform programme has highlighted decisions about the future basis
of local government generally and in specific localities fundamentally
remains a matter of ministerial prerogative.
43. It is difficult to see how local government
could have some form of legal or constitutional protection without
significant change to the current constitutional arrangements
in the UK, either through embedding the right of local government
to exist, with its functions, finance and structure incorporated
within a codified (written) constitution which would could only
be amended with special measures (ie by a two thirds majority)
by the legislature with independent oversight through the courts.
September 2008
| 
