Memorandum by Maidstone Borough Council
(BOP 41)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
— The well-being powers have increased
the powers of local government extensively and we believe that
local government does have enough powers.
— We have identified that these powers
have not been used to the fullest extent by local government because
of the risk-averse culture created by inspections, the constant
measuring and monitoring of performance, and financial constraints
imposed from central government.
— With regard to whether we need greater
devolution we believe that it is clear from the interviews and
case study evidence that it is not a matter of needing greater
power but, rather, greater simplification of the system and structure.
— It is clear that unitary government makes
it easier for local authorities to achieve local priorities and
become place shapers. We have shown that the barriers to place-shaping
and community leadership for our council have, by an large, been
caused by the two-tier system in which we operate.
— There is, however, a perceived loss of
power by the electorate as demonstrated by voter turnout which
has dropped significantly over the last 25 to 30 years.
— This loss of power is because of the
confusion over who delivers services locally and the lack of control
we have as a district council in a two-tier area over the services
that allow us to achieve our ambitions and priorities for local
people.
— With central government determining policy
for local authority services, as well as the rise in quangos delivering
services, there is a democratic deficit and an overly complicated
system of public service delivery in England.
— With regard to finance we agree with
the conclusions drawn by Sir Michael Lyons that there needs to
be greater flexibility, better incentives and clearer accountability.
— We believe that the system of capping
is a very blunt instrument to ensure local government acts responsibly
and, where councils have demonstrated responsibility and been
rated as excellent, they should be given greater financial freedom
with regard to the setting of council tax.
— We believe that if we had the power to
set, collect and use the business rates for Maidstone we could
make a significant difference to our economic regeneration and
prosperity.
— Furthermore, the current distribution
of revenue support grant would be fairer, and not subject to political
whim, if administered by an independent body.
— We have also identified that bidding
for funding has detracted time and resources away from delivering
services and, if this funding is needed, it should be included
in the revenue support grant.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The Corporate Services Overview and
Scrutiny Committee set-up a cross-party working group to consider
the balance of power between Central and Local Government following
a call for evidence from a Parliamentary Select Committee. The
Select Committee requested evidence via a press release in mid-July
and an article in the First Local Government magazine in
late July. The terms of reference for the Parliamentary Select
Committee are broad and the review group therefore decided to
address the four questions posed in the First magazine.
These are outlined below:
The aim of the review was to answer the following
questions raised by the Select Committee in First magazine:
1. Does Local government need more powers? Does
it make sufficient use of those it has?
2. Are there any central government-imposed barriers
preventing Councils from fulfilling their community Leadership
Role
3. Do you think local government should have
greater financial freedom?
4. Would greater devolution to local government
lead to a "postcode lottery" in public service standards?
If so, does it matter?
2.2 The committee gathered evidence for
the review through a series of interviews with officers, councillors
and former councillors (see appendices A-E). They also researched
case studies to support the information gathered at interview
(see case studies 1-7).
3. FINDINGS
3.1 Does Local Government need more powers?
Does it make sufficient use of those that it has?
3.1.2 We believe that there are several
issues that need to be addressed in responding to this question
including the structure of local government, well-being powers,
powers relating to raising our own income (see response to question
3.3) and the lack of a central constitution.
3.1.3 Structure
We have identified that local government probably
does have enough power. This was identified during interviews
with the Chief Executive, Leader and one of our Directors, all
of whom have significant local government experience. The question
is not whether there is enough power but how can councils be allowed
to use the powers they have. To this end there should be a fundamental
review of the structure of local government. As a district in
a two-tier area many of the constraints the council faces are
because we are a district. The council recognizes the need for
a strategic role in local government which in two-tier areas is
taken by the county. However this role has evolved over time and
the county are becoming more and more involved in service delivery,
moving beyond their strategic role. It is very frustrating for
an ambitious district council to be dependent on another tier
of government to achieve its local priorities. For example, with
regard to congestion and air quality, strategic transport solutions
to these issues lie with the county not the district. We have
identified that the operation of local government in Wales, where
unitary councils carry out service delivery and the Welsh Assembly
acts in a strategic role, represents a clear separation of powers
and services and we believe that this is an example of an effective
local government structure. If the two-tier system is to remain
in the shires then this should be re-modelled on the system in
Wales.
3.1.4 Well-being Powers
The well-being powers have increased our powers
significantly allowing councils to do almost anything in respect
of improving the well-being of their communities. We have, however,
identified that councils are naturally risk-averse because of
the high level of monitoring, inspection and central targets and
performance management. If, for example, a council decides not
to pursue a particular national indicator in favour of pursuing
a different local target that council will be subject to heavy
inspection and public ratings of its performance. We believe that
Maidstone has not been risk-averse and has taken risks in a measured
way. We have, however, found that we could have made greater use
of our powers if we had had the resources available to do so.
3.1.5 Central Constitution
We recognise that local government actions are
informed by statute and that every power and duty bestowed upon
us is through legislation. The numerous acts and guidance plus
the number of different government departments involved has made
this very complicated and we believe it needs to be simplified.
3.2 Are there any Central Government-Imposed
Barriers preventing Councils from fulfilling their Community Leadership
Role?
3.2.1 Financial Restrictions
Several of our interviewees identified that
the organisation of local government funding has meant that we
have had to jump through too many hoops to get it. There are too
many government funds for local authorities to bid for which we
believe should form part of the revenue support grant. The method
of bidding for funding has meant that time is taken away from
delivering services and diverted into participating in "beauty
parade" bids for funding. This approach also means that funding
does not always go to those who most need it but to those who
can play the game with central government. The latest Comprehensive
Spending Review has, however, created greater clarity as we now
know our funding position over a three year period. When looking
for case studies to evidence financial control, case study 6 considers
the changes made to the fees for local land charges. It would
appear that whilst the government allows councils to set their
own fees this is actually on a restrictive basis and, in this
example, has created a loss in council income which would have
benefited the community.
3.2.2 Influence over key services outside of
Local Government
Local councils are very well placed to identify
local need and represent local communities. As a local authority
we have acted on behalf of residents to try and prevent changes
to local public services that will adversely affect the local
community (see case study 5). We have, however, found that we
are not listened to and in this particular case this was reinforced
by the secretary of state as they ruled in favour of the Primary
Care Trusts decision. In case study 5 it is apparent that
central government does act on local matters, thereby imposing
barriers on the local council to act, as our objections have made
no difference to the decision.
3.2.3 Two-tier arrangements
As stated in the response to 3.1, the organisation
of local government is a barrier to the Council achieving its
community leadership role. As a district we are often not in control
of the whole picture when it comes to service delivery to local
people. We can make ambitious priorities for Maidstone but are
constrained in our ability to deliver when the achievement of
these targets rely on others who have their own priorities.
3.2.3 Targets and Performance Management
All of our interviewees have identified that
local government is heavily monitored and measured. This has led
to performance management becoming an industry in its own right.
It is appropriate to expect services to meet minimum standards
but the present system is over-complicated and burdensome. Both
Comprehensive Performance Assessments and the new Comprehensive
Area Assessments require considerable effort and time from those
being inspected. It would be interesting to measure the extent
which the audit commission has grown over the last few years as
inspection requirements on local government have risen. Too much
money is being spent evidencing and monitoring performance rather
than on delivering services.
3.2.4 Lack of clarity
There is a lack of clarity as to who does what
in terms of service provision. The emergence of quangos, non-democratically
accountable organisations delivering services and affecting change,
is a barrier to local councils (see case study 3). We have identified
during interviews that, whilst it is clear who is responsible
for service provision as this is set out in statute, the practicality
of delivering services and setting policies has meant that this
is consistently murky and blurred. This is not helped when Central
Government announce policies on local service provision with inadequate
consultation and funding (see case study 1 and 4 on
concessionary fares and free swimming)
3.3 Do you think local government should have
greater financial freedom?
3.3.1 Power Slide and Voter Turnout
We note the slide in power over the last forty
years from local government to central government, which is particularly
apparent when considering how local government is financed. We
agree with the view of Iain Roxburgh, Chair of the New Local Government
Network who argues that: "Financial devolution is the key
to real devolution that goes well beyond delegation. It is also
the key to effective place shaping and to attracting a new generation
of people to see local political action and membership of their
local authority as the way to improve their locality and shape
its future."[32]
If you consider the figures for Maidstone, in 1986 voter
turnout for a district council election was 46% by 1998 this
had dropped to 27% and has only risen in 2006 and 2007 to
approx 37% with the advent of postal voting. There has been a
clear drop in voter turnout over the past 25 to 30 years.
Greater financial freedom to set council tax could improve voter
turnout dramatically.
3.3.2 Lyons Findings
Sir Michael Lyons spent three years reviewing
local government finance and we are not in a position to carry
out such an extensive review in the 10 weeks given to submit
evidence to the enquiry. The Council does agree with the findings
of Sir Michael Lyons in the Local Government Spending Review 2007 and
these are summarised below:
— The high degree of central control, both
through formal targets and monitoring regimes, and through softer
and less direct controls the lack of flexibility that English
local authorities have to raise additional revenues and use existing
resources to support local priorities;
— the role of needs, expectations, national
funding, efficiency and local choice in determining pressures
on council tax;
— the confused accountability in the finance
system which contributes to a poor understanding of how the system
works and unrealistic expectations of how much services cost.
The complex governance arrangements within English local government
and how this affects work across authority boundaries to drive
economic prosperity;
— the lack of trust in local government
caused by poor accountability, concern about council tax and the
impact of the adversarial relationship between central and local
government; and
— the incentives in the system that distributes
national resources, in particular how they can help to develop
a more constructive relationship between central and local government
and also to support local authorities in pursuing improvements
in economic prosperity and housing supply in their area.[33]
3.3.3 Government Control
The Council is concerned that two of its main
sources of funding (government grant and council tax) are heavily
controlled by central government. The third source of additional
funding through applying for lottery grants and bidding for funding
from non-governmental departments is in essence a "beauty
parade" form of funding. We do, however, recognise that we
have the power to raise income through fees and that these are
not constrained by government unless it is in relation to land
charges (see case study 6) or parking where we are not allowed
to profit from provision of the service. We welcome the greater
freedom and flexibility that has been given in growth point status
funding but we were surprised that, to gain the funding, we had
to demonstrate what we would be using it for. Now we have it we
are not constrained at all centrally in how the funding is spent
(see case study 2).
3.3.4 Government Grant
We recognise the need for government grant to
ensure that there is equity of service provision. An independent
body should be set up to allocate the revenue support grant to
local government using a clear framework. An independent body
to allocate funding would mean that funding would not be subject
to political manipulation or be perceived to be manipulated.
3.3.5 Council Tax
We considered that the present system and agreed
that it met in most respects Adam Smith's economic principles
for taxation (The Wealth of Nations, 1776) Equality, Certainty,
Convenience of payment, Economy in Collection.
It can be argued that council tax is convenient
to pay and economical to collect and is also fairly stable as
it is based on properties. It is not necessarily equitable in
all senses of the word. There could be an argument for levying
an income tax, however we believe that council tax is a "good
tax".
3.3.6 Capping
With regard to capping it was highlighted that
capping by central government meant that the Council could not
set the council tax it required to meet local service need. The
Council does acknowledge the past problems which led to capping
whereby some local authorities did not exercise financial control
or responsibility. We agree that there does need to be some form
of financial control but a more flexible system needs to be developed
rather than punishing all councils with a 5% cap, particularly
when councils have demonstrated strong performance.
3.3.7 Non-Domestic Business Rates
Related to the lack of ability councils have
to raise their own income is the issue of the non-domestic business
rates which is a national tax scheme. Maidstone Council identified
in 2001-02 that the amount of tax collected was £39 million
and the amount we received back was £5 million. We believe
that if we had the power to set, collect and use the business
rates for Maidstone we could make a significant difference to
our economic regeneration and prosperity. If businesses could
see that the rates they paid went direct to local services they
would be more interested in engaging with the Council in how services
are developed and delivered.
3.3.8 Improvements
There has, however, been greater financial freedom
in the last few years which the Council recognises and takes as
positive action from the government. A clear example of this is
new growth point status funding (see case study 2), although it
is worth noting that we would have been expected to build extra
houses regardless of whether we had been given funding. A further
example is the ability for prudential borrowing which will help
councils to achieve key priorities for local communities provided
that they have the income to pay it back.
3.4 Would Greater Devolution to Local Government
lead to a "Postcode Lottery" in Public Service Standards?
If so, does it matter?
3.4.1 The term "postcode lottery"
is very negative. If you treat every community and area as different
with different needs, you should not therefore expect a uniformity
of service delivery. As stated earlier, rather than equalising
service delivery according to a national agenda, councils should
be set minimum standards for service delivery ie literacy levels
for education. We should be subject to local targets and held
accountable through the ballot box rather than continually performing
for central government to tick boxes that they believe are important.
We have found locally that structures such as Local Strategic
Partnerships (see case study 7) and the Local Area Agreement are
not understood by our communities and, in two-tier areas, are
hamstrung by local government structure and central government's
persistence in issuing legislation appropriate for unitary areas
that does not translate easily into two-tier areas.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 We have identified that local government
does have enough power bestowed upon it to carry out its role
as a community leader and place-shaper. However the ability to
use this power is limited by financial constraints and the risk
averse culture that has pervaded local government. Financial constraints
include the time and resources used to bid for funding and grants.
This culture has been created by constant monitoring and a tick-box
approach to rating council performance from central government.
We believe that both structure and finance can and should be simplified,
we do not however mean simplification through further tinkering
from yet another new secretary of state but a wide-scale review
of how local government operates and its financial arrangements.
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW WITH DEREK WILLIAMSON, CHIEF FINANCE
OFFICER 19 AUGUST 2008, SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS FOR REVIEW
Present: Councillors FitzGerald (Chairman),
Batt, Wilson and Sherreard (for first twenty minutes)
BEFORE YOU
LOOK AT
FINANCE
DW expressed that there were three areas that
needed to be addressed in succession before you could consider
finance.
1. With regard to a national constitution, the
role of local government did, in DW's opinion, need to be set
out in a constitution agreed by Parliament. This would stop the
reform of local government according to political whim. If the
role of local government was outlined in a constitution this would
give local government more stability and allow for longer-term
planning.
2. There should be greater clarity between national
and local services. An example of this is education; currently
there are local education authorities but most money for schools
is passported direct to schools and the Secretary of State is
held to account for the performance of education.
3. With regard to structure, unitary local government
would create efficiency, clear lines of responsibility and clarity
for service delivery.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FINANCE
With regard to reforming local government finance,
DW stated that Local Authorities should be able to collect a greater
proportion of their own income so that local people could see
a clear correlation between tax collected and services delivered.
The majority of funding for local authorities
was through council tax and Government Grant, both of which had
constraints. Capping of council tax was cited as a particular
constraint on local authorities. It was acknowledged that Government
Grant was an appropriate method of funding as it ensured the equal
distribution of resources according to need and local resources.
However, it was pointed out that this method of funding was open
to political manipulation and an independent body should be responsible
for the distribution of Government Grant through an appropriate
framework.
The Lyons Review was discussed and DW raised
that this review had recommended that capping be removed and council
tax be evaluated—both of these were rejected by Central
Government.
IS COUNCIL
TAX A
GOOD TAX?
Adam Smith's four economic principles for taxation
(The Wealth of Nations, 1776) were outlined in relation
to council tax:
— Convenience of payment; and
It could be argued that council tax is convenient
to pay and economical to collect; it is also fairly stable as
it is based on properties. However, it was not necessarily equitable
in all senses of the word and there could also be an argument
for levying an income tax. The council tax represents one of the
economic levers to try to ensure the efficient use of housing,
which was a scarce resource particularly in the south.
THE TWO-TIER
ISSUE
The failings of a two-tier system for local
government are demonstrated in the reforms recommended by Lyons
with regard to Business Growth Initiative funds which in our area
are going to the County Council, not districts.
BUSINESS RATES
The working group commented that some businesses
do believe that the rates they pay go straight to local councils.
The group considered the arguments for an equitable system of
funding according to need and the ability to raise local taxes.
FREEDOM AND
RESPONSIBILITY
The group acknowledged that with great power
comes great responsibility so there would need to be an appropriate
system of ensuring that greater financial freedoms achieved good
quality local services.
NATIONAL OR
LOCAL POLICY?
The group discussed concessionary fares and
free swimming as two government initiatives that would have an
effect on the local authority. It was identified that further
areas that could be case studies were licensing, planning searches
and the LDF.
PROGRESS
The group discussed the progress made by central
government with regard to finance, including prudential borrowing
and 3 yearly settlements; it was agreed that this was not
enough.
TRUST
Growth Point Status was discussed; it was identified
that the Government had encouraged the Council to bid for £50 million
pounds worth of funding and only £5 million had actually
been available. Government should have been honest about the resources
available from the outset. Failing authorities in the past led
to power being taken from local authorities. We need to think
about how we regain trust between the two as the central-local
concordat has not achieved this.
DO WE
USE ALL
OUR POWERS?
With regard to the wellbeing powers, it was
identified that as councils' hands were tied financially they
were then restricted from taking on additional activities beyond
their already stretched resources. Financial and legislative powers
needed to come together if they were to be effective. It was highlighted
that if Government wanted major change they should give local
councils the freedom to raise money themselves without capping.
It was highlighted that Central Government had many means of raising
taxes and could therefore have a greater social and economic impact
as they had many economic levers.
HOW WE
ORGANISE OURSELVES
A further issue discussed was local government
elections in terms of their timing in the year and the increased
stability created by four-yearly elections.
OTHER ISSUES
— There has been a lack of consistency
from Central Government: over the past twenty years, we have had
a huge number of changes from our Secretary of State. Each change
has brought new ideas for local government.
— Accountability and Value for Money
— Devolved Power must be passed on
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW WITH COUNCILLOR GARLAND, LEADER
OF THE COUNCIL 22 AUGUST 2008, SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS FOR
REVIEW
Present: Councillors FitzGerald (Chairman),
Batt, Thick and Sherreard
INTRODUCTION
The group thanked the Leader for attending the
meeting at short notice and posed the four questions they were
seeking to address as their terms of reference to him, as well
as a further question on the need for a constitution.
Does local government need more powers? Does it
make sufficient use of those it has?
Councillor Garland responded that the Council
did make sufficient use of its powers; however the Council's role
as a place-shaper was limited by its position as a district council
in a two-tier area. To truly have influence and deliver policy
locally to achieve the Council's ambitions it would need to be
a unitary authority. The Leader gave the example of the Kent County
Council's decision to extend the concessionary fares scheme to
a 9 a.m. start. This had been announced in the press prior
to discussion with the district councils and the district councils
in Kent had felt very little option but to comply with the decision.
The working group agreed that more could be
done to publicise what the Council does and address the gap between
public perception and service standards.
Are there any Central Government-Imposed Barriers
preventing Councils from fulfilling their Community Leadership
role?
Councillor Garland commented that the Council's
ability to carry out the community leadership role was hampered
by finance. Any innovation in this area required additional resources.
Another area was planning, where the targets
on time limits affected the quality of work. The planning system
itself imposed many barriers and constraints on the authority.
Recycling targets were onerous and meant that
the majority of funding was directed to this service which proved
a barrier to providing additional services beyond those the Council
was statutorily required to provide.
Do you think Local Government should have Greater
Financial Freedom?
The Leader stated that there was a balance to
be struck between stopping high spending and ensuring there were
sufficient resources to deliver good quality local services. In
his opinion capping offered a means to achieve this and he believed
the present financial controls were appropriate, however the Council
required more revenue support grant. The Leader ascertained that
without capping there would be no guarantee that councils would
not overspend and raise high taxes. In answer to questions Councillor
Garland stated that there should be freedom for local government
but this should be balanced with responsibility.
In answer to questions about additional income
the Leader informed the group that the Cabinet was considering
establishing a development company for Maidstone which could use
prudential borrowing to fund capital projects such as the All
Saints Link Road; the borrowing would be repaid through future
section 106 agreements. Other opportunities available were
lottery bids and grants. The Leader also gave the example of Business
Improvement Districts, a scheme rejected twice by businesses in
Maidstone.
Would greater devolution to local government lead
to a "Postcode Lottery" in public service standards?
If so, does it matter?
The Leader responded that greater credence would
be given to local democracy if the Council had responsibility
and control over those issues that most affected local people
such as planning and highways. He also believed that the Council's
ability to make a real difference economically was hampered by
the national Non-Domestic Business Rates scheme. The issue was
that funding was only received from it through one-off limited
schemes such as LAGBI. It was also highlighted that an increase
in power would in turn increase voter turn out and participation
in democracy.
Do we need a central constitution?
The Leader responded that there was an issue
with Quangos and Non-Governmental Departments which ran services
but were not democratically accountable to local people. The Regional
Development Agency was cited as an example of an organisation
without appropriate democratic accountability and limited Member
involvement. Councillor Garland believed that if the Council was
a unitary it would have greater power to create change locally.
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW WITH MR PAUL OLDHAM, FORMER BOROUGH
COUNCILLOR (1980) AND COUNTY COUNCILLOR (1977) 26 AUGUST
2008, SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS FOR REVIEW
Present: Councillors Batt (Chairman), Sherreard
and Wilson
INTRODUCTION
The group thanked Mr Oldham for attending the
meeting and asked him several questions about the balance of power
between central and local government. Mr Oldham drew on his knowledge
and experience as a former County Councillor in 1977 then
as a Borough Councillor from 1980 to 2008.
OPINION OF
CHANGE
Mr Oldham stated that the changes to local government
had been a gradual slide over the past forty years to the present
position. Each Act had resulted in a small shift to another position
and so on. When he had begun his local government career, local
government had meant local people running local services.
Mr Oldham gave the group his opinion on the
reasons for the shift in the balance of power between central
and local government. In the early 20th Century, Central Government
did not deal with social issues; this was regarded as a matter
for local people. Mr Oldham believed that the change to look at
social issues and increased centralisation was not because of
a wish to ensure that everyone had equal entitlement but was because
central government ministers were no longer focussed on the empire.
As the empire shrunk Central Government had less to do and began
to look at local government. The next step in the centralisation
of powers was the move into Europe. As the top had pushed down
on local authorities so had county councils pushed down onto district
authorities. The reorganisation of local government in 1974 was
meant to place the county council as the strategic authority with
responsibility for taking decisions which would have been unacceptable
to take at a local level for example waste disposal for Kent.
The County in his opinion had used its strategic role to get increasingly
involved in detail. As the County had lost power, for example
with regard to education, the Police and Fire Services, they had
in turn sought power from the districts.
CONTROL AND
INSPECTION
When he had become a Councillor there was no
ring-fencing of money and councils were not tied into delivering
services based on ring-fenced grants. The exception to this was
the police service whereby the Home Office gave the authority
half of the budget identified as needed to run the service. There
were no inspections as there were now; there was a District Auditor
who would be responsible for checking fraud. This freedom and
flexibility had allowed each local authority to set its own priorities
so priorities differed from council to council. The example was
given of Maidstone's choice to fund a large museum; in his opinion
this was a county museum being run by a small local authority
because it identified it as a local priority.
Mr Oldham identified that the Government now
dictated services through grants, performance targets, spending
targets and limits on tax. If local authorities failed to meet
targets, they had to explain why and were held accountable. In
earlier years, the accountability of local government had been
solely to the electorate. Councillors were now in the position
of having to achieve government priorities rather than setting
priorities according to local needs.
Kent in 1977 spent under half per head
of population than the old LCC as a result of which the taxes
were half. Elections were fought on the basis of taxation and
services. He believed that there was a correlation between the
power of local authorities and the turnout at local elections.
PLANNING
Mr Oldham gave the example of planning as an
area where the electorate had become more aware that the Council
had very little power. Council discretion on planning applications
was very limited. In the past it had been very unusual to see
appeals against planning decisions on smaller applications as
compensation wasn't available if you won the appeal and there
was not much basis for an inspector overturning a planning decision.
Planning is a key issue for local people in Maidstone.
The group discussed the requirements and restraints
on Councillors when considering planning applications at Committee.
Mr Oldham stated that by not allowing Councillors to act on behalf
of their local community and preventing them from taking decisions
on planning applications if they had agreed with the electorate
ahead of the meeting, Councillors were treated as fools. As a
Councillor you were one of 55 members, you were elected to
represent your ward and you should be able to advocate your cause
acknowledging that it is the other 54 Councillors who will
make the decision. The electorate does not understand prejudicial
interests and believes that the Councillor is ducking the issue
if they won't give their opinion and act on residents' behalf.
How do we achieve a balance between equal opportunity
at a national level and the right services locally?
Mr Oldham responded that if the responsibility
for services was placed with local people the average level of
services would rise. However, this would mean that in some areas
the standard of service would be very poor whilst in others it
would be exceptional. That variation between service standards
was not present in the current system. Mr Oldham believed that
acceptable standards should be developed for key services, for
example literacy, with appropriate penalties (not financial) for
those authorities that failed to meet them. The mechanisms for
managing performance and ensuring there were acceptable levels
of service should be very few to allow freedom and flexibility
to deliver local priorities. The CPA process meant that councils
now focussed on ticking those boxes required by Government.
Is it clear who provides services?
Mr Oldham agreed with the group that it was
now no longer clear who provided services. If you asked the public
who currently ran schools, responses would vary from MBC, KCC,
and LSC to the Government.
It was apparent that public sector bodies at
all levels now worked on publicising which services they were
responsible for but this led to greater confusion. Now you can
read adverts from the Learning and Skills Council, which advertise
themselves as a body as opposed to the services they provide and
how to access them.
There was another issue with identifying responsibilities
for services relating to the number of Quangos and Non-Governmental
Departments and bodies. Would the public know for example what
the difference was between the PCT and the Hospital Trust?
In 1977, the County was responsible for providing
the Police and Fire service. It was also responsible for education;
however now there were several bodies involved, for example the
LSC was now responsible for further education and Connexions was
responsible for providing careers advice.
FINANCIAL CONTROLS
In Mr Oldham's opinion, capping should never
have taken place. The issue of business rates was discussed; previously
local authorities had set the business rate and received it from
local businesses, but now this was a national tax. If councils
were given the money collected for their area then local businesses
would be more interested in being involved in local services and
working with the authority. Mr Oldham referred to a past scrutiny
meeting where information had been presented on the level of business
rates collected versus the level the Council received. Councillors
had been surprised at the amount businesses paid.
What structure would work?
Mr Oldham responded that the County was now
looking to equalise services across Kent and gave the example
of the education service. Previously Kent had seven different
education systems based on local need and choice; now they were
working towards one structure. It was his opinion that unitary
structures were the most appropriate way of organising local government.
With regard to the present system, the group
agreed that a review of the whole system was required rather than
tinkering with different parts. Mr Oldham recommended the group
look at the Baines Report to identify the powers for local authorities
in 1974 and why changes were made.
The group discussed the present Cabinet/Scrutiny
system and identified that this system alienated Councillors from
dealing with strategic issues. Mr Oldham stated that he supported
the Cabinet system however the number of Councillors should be
reduced; in his opinion only 35 Councillors were needed to
fulfil the executive, non-executive and scrutiny functions. Scrutiny
can do a good job if Members are fully engaged in the process
and meaningfully involved with the Council.
SUMMARY
In summary local government should be in the
hands of local people subject to minimum standards in a few key
areas.
APPENDIX D
INTERVIEW WITH ALISON BROOM (AB), DIRECTOR
OF OPERATIONS AND ROB JARMAN (RJ), ACTING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
MANAGER 29 AUGUST 2008, SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS FOR REVIEW
Present: Councillors Batt (Chairman), Sherreard,
Thick and Wilson,
Does local government need more powers? Does it
make sufficient use of those it has?
AB responded that she had 25 years of experience
in local government and it was her opinion that local government
was heavily structured. Local authorities are told what they have
to do and what they can do by law.
With regard to the wellbeing powers, she believed
that councils had not made best use of these; this may be in part
because councils are heavily monitored, very structured and can
therefore feel as if there is no time and space for change. With
regard to Maidstone, AB commented that the vehicle for delivering
wellbeing was the sustainable community strategy, which was not
being used to its fullest effect. AB argued that the Council tended
to get drawn into detail and more could be done to simplify processes.
There were however examples of local authorities of varying sizes
that had transformed local areas by having a clear strategic vision
and identifying a few key projects to achieve this. RJ agreed
that there was a need for the Council to have a simplified vision.
The group discussed planning and development
with the officers. It was explained that the Council needed to
be clear what it wanted the Borough to look like in its Local
Development Framework and Core Strategy. In answer to a question
on the Fremlin Walk development it was explained that the Council
had to choose how to spend the limited resources it had available,
so there was a choice as to whether the Council added to the Fremlin
development.
The group discussed Section 106 agreements.
It was explained that the targets for affordable housing were
set locally. Government guidance identified that developments
should not represent a burden on public services and should "pay
their way". It was up to the Council to prioritise what S106 money
should be spent on; they could, for example, identify that "quality
public spaces" was the number one priority and allocate S106s
accordingly.
The group considered consultation and AB identified
that local authorities provided a wide range of diverse services
and changes centrally were sometimes planned and sometimes not.
Are there any central government-imposed barriers
preventing Councils from fulfilling their community Leadership
Role?
The approach to funding has created barriers—see
the answer to the next question.
The group discussed that the clarity of service
provision was a barrier. AB pointed out that legislation did clearly
define the provision of services however the practicality of delivering
services meant this was blurred. The unitary structure did provide
more clarity and meant that a local authority was able to deliver
local priorities. It was noticeable that district authorities
were often overlooked when new legislation was introduced. The
group discussed the local government arrangements in Wales and
London and agreed that these worked well.
The group discussed legislation; it was identified
that new legislation often overlapped with previous legislation
then this was followed by further legislation to provide rationalisation.
It was identified that whilst planning guidance
did allow for local choice, the national inspectorate could remove
that choice for example with the Local development Framework.
RJ identified that the process allowed the authority to identify
housing and business sites which could now be overturned by a
national inspectorate regardless of local priorities and need.
Do you think local government should have greater
financial freedom?
AB responded that the Council had far more flexibility
now than it had in previous years particularly with the advent
of prudential borrowing. We were constrained as a Council but
we did have capital and were in a relatively good position. AB
identified that the way councils received funding was very complicated.
The latest Comprehensive Spending Review had created greater clarity
as the Council now knew its funding position over a three year
period. It was identified that funding that would have been given
to the Council as part of main stream funding was now given by
government in the form of beauty parade funding that is bidding
and competing for funding. This approach consumes time and energy.
AB argued that there should be more discretion on how money was
prioritised and funding could be simplified.
With regard to performance indicators the Council
could take a local choice not to pursue a target but then be heavily
criticised for being in the bottom quartile. It was important
that there were basic standards set for services but the indicators
and targets have now become an end in themselves. The modernising
agenda had created huge organisational requirements to measure
and monitor performance, this in turn had created caution and
made councils risk averse.
Would greater devolution to local government lead
to a "postcode lottery" in public service standards?
If so, does it matter?
The group discussed the need for minimum standards
for service delivery. The group agreed that the structure and
processes for local government could be simplified. It was inevitable
that different areas would make different decisions.
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW WITH DAVID PETFORD (DP), CHIEF
EXECUTIVE 4 SEPTEMBER 2008—SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS FOR
REVIEW
Present: Councillors FitzGerald (Chairman),
Batt and Wilson
Does local government need more powers? Does it
make sufficient use of those it has?
DP identified that local government did have
enough powers and the power of wellbeing allowed councils to do
almost anything. Councils were however naturally risk averse because
of the potential damage to reputation. Maidstone had not been
risk averse and had taken risks in a measured way. In answer to
questions it was identified that not all officers were aware of
the opportunities and possibilities open to local government.
Officers were however prepared to be innovative and this was encouraged
and supported at the Council. It was identified that Councillors
needed to know more about the powers of wellbeing and the freedoms
afforded to local government.
Are there any central government-imposed barriers
preventing Councils from fulfilling their community Leadership
Role?
DP identified that the Government interfered
too much in local government. The framework and number of targets
was given as an example of this interference. DP also identified
that some targets set by central government were perverse. That
said, DP believed that councils should set themselves strong targets
and take a business approach.
With regard to structure DP stated that in his
opinion the two-tier system did not work as well as the unitary
system. He identified that Medway had benefited from becoming
a unitary. As an ambitious local council it was frustrating not
to be in control of the services that would allow the Council
to achieve its ambitions.
Do you think local government should have greater
financial freedom?
DP identified that the funding for local government
was from three sources: Government Grant, council tax and income
eg fees and charges. With regard to income it was identified that
the Council had the freedom to charge what they thought was appropriate
but this was inevitably dictated by the market.
The group discussed capping and DP stated that
he thought it was necessary to prevent some councils from acting
irresponsibly. He argued that it was however a blunt instrument
for restricting council tax. With regard to Non-Domestic Business
Rates, DP agreed with the group that it would be more equitable
if local business rates were paid to the Council, but pointed
out that this would greatly disadvantage rural areas and or dormitory
towns who did not have a reasonable proportion of business.
DP informed the group that it was possible to
set up businesses to address local needs but this was far more
practical if the authority was a large authority with a high financial
turnover, for example Kent County Council.
Prudential borrowing was inevitable but the
Council's ability to raise money this way was linked to the level
of council tax it raised. For example the recent small increases
in council tax over the last two years meant the Council would
now find it was more difficult to afford prudential borrowing.
The group discussed growth point money with DP. DP commented that
the Council had to "jump through hoops" to get the funding,
meeting many requirements from different government agencies,
but had then been given complete freedom as to how to spend the
money. It seemed strange to make the Council identify how it wanted
to spend the money as part of the bidding process but then not
to tie the Council to that.
Concessionary fares was discussed by group and
DP explained that Government had allocated enough money overall
for the county of Kent, but it was at a district level the distribution
was not right. In Kent it had meant that some councils such as
Thanet had gained an estimated £1 million of additional
resources whilst it had cost Maidstone an estimated quarter of
a million this year and this was set to increase in future years.
It would have been better if funding was distributed as a county-wide
scheme.
Would greater devolution to local government lead
to a "postcode lottery" in public service standards?
If so, does it matter?
As long as satisfactory minimum service standards
were set this would not be an issue and every area could then
concentrate on different priorities and differences in services
according to need.
CASE STUDY
1
CONCESSIONARY FARES—THE NATIONAL SCHEME
What was the act/change/power?
Between 2000 and April 2008, there have
been several changes to the concessionary bus fares scheme. This
culminated in a national scheme which allowed all disabled people
and those aged 60 or over to travel on any bus in the country
free of charge. Each fare is paid for by the authority at the
point of origin of the journey.
How did it happen?
Approximately one year before the introduction
of the final scheme (hereafter known as the national scheme) on
1 April 2008, the policy was publicly announced with the
amount of money to be set aside already determined. This was prior
to any consultation with any local authorities, or indeed the
LGA. The decision was non-negotiable and decided by Central Government.
Consultation
Several discussions and negotiations were held
between the LGA—on behalf of local authorities—and
Central Government. However, the LGA's opinions were largely ignored.
The one concession that was agreed upon was that funding from
central government would be paid separately to the RSG. This allowed
complete transparency and a clear understanding of what each authority
could expect.
What was the Effect?
Maidstone Borough Council had always offered
its residents concessionary fares and alternatives beyond those
that central government had decreed. Letters that sought clarification
on the government's funding response to the continuation of discretionary
"extras" were sent by this authority, the county authority
and other local authorities to the Secretary of State. All were
answered in a frustratingly ambiguous tone.
Following these responses it was felt that to
continue to offer any discretionary schemes, such as companion
passes for carers or vouchers to use alternative transport for
the severely disabled, was too much of a financial risk for the
council. Given this, local residents in Maidstone have lost out.
The Council did suffer reputational damage as
a result of the removal of these concessions that arose from the
financial implications of the national scheme to local authorities.
In addition, there is some question as to whether the authority's
decision to remove alternative means of transport for the disabled
is DDA compliant.
It is too early to tell exactly what the cost
of this scheme will be to the authority. A conservative projection
is that Maidstone will have a significant shortfall of around
£240,000 (after the funding of £440,000 received
from the government) due to the introduction of this scheme.
Whilst the benefits to those that can both use
a bus, and have access to one locally (another issue not taken
into account) are clear, the impact has been to
(i) denigrate the reputation of the council;
and
(ii) leave a significant number of people unable
to enjoy the freedom of travel they previously had.
What could be changed?
When the national scheme was first brought to
the attention of local authorities, and indeed the LGA, it was
vociferously argued that the scheme should be administered at
a county level. This would have ensured that the problems arising
from the differences between authority boundaries and bus fare
boundaries would have been substantially reduced.
In addition, companion passes should have been
included in the national scheme so that those who need help when
using buses were not disadvantaged.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that the national scheme cannot
function if authorities choose to "opt-out". However,
the issue of adequately funding a scheme that has been foisted
upon a local authority has never been fully answered. Arguably,
if Central Government wishes to implement a policy it should be
through its own expenditure. Central Government believes that
there is enough "money in the pot" and that this has
been fairly allocated across the country, a belief not shared
by many authorities.
Local authorities have been left providing a
national service at a local level and yet have no control of either
the costs or the funding.
Councillor Julia Batt
CASE STUDY
2
GROWTH POINT STATUS
What was the change?
With Growth Point Status agreed, we moved away
from annual project specific funding and funding in arrears expenditure
to non-project specific and advance funding (this year received
on 1 May). There is also no ring fencing for this money and
it can be spent at any time. In other words we could save it up
to spend on a large project. This means that how the money is
spent is now determined locally to meet local needs.
There is also now a three year indicative allocation
which makes short—to medium-term planning more achievable.
With regard to monitoring, previously there
were milestones and outputs that were project specific; now monitoring
is aligned with the National Performance Framework.
How did it happen and consultation
A housing allocation for Growth Point Status
was agreed (for Maidstone Borough set at 10,080 but there
was the caveat that this was to be confirmed by the South East
Plan). Councils were then invited to put in a list of major projects
that growth point could fund, however they were not told what
was in the funding pot nationally.
What was the effect?
Councils put in bids for what they believed
were realistic and necessary projects for their areas but these
apparently far exceeded the funding available and everyone received
substantially less than they had requested. Also the Government
Inspector has now increased the housing allocation by 1,000 for
Maidstone. On the credit side the indicative finance guaranteed
in three year blocks following Comprehensive Spending Review strengthens
councils' ability to negotiate and improves flexibility with regard
to staff contracts.
CONCLUSION
In general terms the move away from project
specific and funding in arrears, plus a three year indicative
allocation, is welcomed. It is argued however that the complexity
of the system and the hoops to be jumped through result in "dead"
money feeding a bureaucratic industry. If a council is marked
as excellent and has Growth Point Status why not find a simple
method to allocate the money and fund directly through the rate
support grant?
Councillor Fran Wilson
CASE STUDY
3
THE INFLUENCE OF QUANGOS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
INTRODUCTION
There are approximately 1,220 Quangos in
the UK today. These bodies are appointed by government and are
unaccountable to the taxpayers who, indirectly, fund them.
One of these bodies that impacts upon the ability
of Maidstone Borough Council to perform its tasks is the South
East of England Development Agency (SEEDA) together with the South
East of England Regional Assembly (SEERA). The Development Agencies,
together with the Regional Assemblies, are seen as part of the
regionalisation of Europe as a potential replacement for National
Governments. They operate at a level between the National Government
and local authorities, and are funded either by Government, in
the case of the Development Agencies or by subscription by member
authorities in the case of Regional Assemblies. Development Agencies
are staffed by government appointees, whereas Regional Assemblies
are staffed by local authority members and officers who have expressed
a desire to be involved, thus introducing an small element of
election and local accountability.
The two bodies can be fairly considered together
as restructuring will lead to them merging into a super-quango.
BACKGROUND
SEEDA was one of nine agencies set up under
the provisions of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.
These agencies only feature in England and Wales, Scotland and
Ireland are already forming regional units. The concept of regional
government formed part of the Labour Party manifesto and was promoted
by the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott. Their mandate
includes the following:-
(a) to further the economic development and the
regeneration of its area;
(b) to promote business efficiency, investment
and competitiveness in its area;
(c) to promote employment in its area;
(d) to enhance the development and application
of skills relevant to employment in its area; and
(e) to contribute to the achievement of sustainable
development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its
area to do so.
A study of the Regional Development Agencies
Act 1998 reveals the set up of a group of bodies with wide-ranging
powers including the ability to enter onto land and to compulsorily
purchase land should it be deemed appropriate. The landowner has
right of appeal but this is only to the Secretary of State who
can hardly be considered independent. A study also shows that
the Secretary of State has absolute control over the staffing
of these agencies and the funding of them.
There was minimal consultation with local government
and the only element of choice was a referendum on the formation
of the North East England Regional Assembly offered to the electorate
in the DPM's own area as they were considered the most likely
people to favour the proposal. In the event they voted 78% against
the proposal and no further Regional Assemblies were established.
The act setting up the Development Agencies was passed with little
modification.
IMPACT ON
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
The original promise of SEEDA towards MBC was
financial and administrative assistance to undertake major regeneration
projects but a close examination will reveal that the promise
has not been upheld. A major failure of the arrangement is that,
if a local authority proposes a major development, SEEDA has absolute
right of veto over the scope and detail of the project which disenfranchises
the local authority.
There was a degree of success with the Channel
Corridor Partnership but subsequent promises of support from SEEDA
have not been fulfilled. Currently efforts are being directed
towards the development of the Thames Gateway and the economic
regeneration of East Kent.
Although on the surface SEERA appears to be
a more democratic body, it is still in the position of being directed
by Government. A specific case is the housing allocation accepted
by MBC to achieve Growth Point Status. MBC accepted a target of
10,080 new homes over 20 years but has already been
directed by Government, through SEERA, to increase this target
by 1,000. There has already been a shortfall in funding promised
by Government in return for achieving Growth Point Status.
These considerations do not bode well for the
future when one considers the fact that the two entities are merging
which will result in a body with absolute control over future
plans for the development of an area stretching from Oxford to
Kent. Had this been based on the SEERA model with staff drawn
from elected members of local government it might be seen to be
democratic but, unfortunately, the new agency will use the existing
Development Agency model with staff being appointed by Government.
The public is largely unaware of impact of SEEDA/SEERA
as delivery of targets imposed by government via these two bodies
rests with the local authority which is seen to be the perpetrator
of some controversial decision-making regarding developments.
This casts the local authority in a bad light as far as the public
is concerned.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
There could and should have been a greater degree
of consultation with local authorities (and therefore, indirectly,
with the public) on a proposal which has the potential to change
dramatically the appearance and quality of life of large areas
of the nation with major impact on the South East. However, Government
wishes to have greater control over such matters and to reduce
the power of local authorities to impose their own preferences
for the developments being undertaken in their area.
Councillor Richard Thick
CASE STUDY
4
FREE SWIMMING
What was the change?
The Government in July this year proposed to
introduce a free swimming scheme for those aged 16 or under
and over 60s. Funding has been identified for the next two years
only.
How did it happen?
The Government announced its proposals to introduce
free swimming without prior consultation on 29 July; a letter
was sent to the Council regarding the proposal on 31 July
2008.
CONSULTATION
The Council is allowed to choose whether to
participate in the scheme and a grant for the first two years
of the scheme has been made available.
What was the effect?
The scheme could be very beneficial for improving
health and wellbeing and encouraging participation in sport. Other
benefits are that there will be funding available to improve local
facilities. The Council has identified that there will be almost
a quarter of a million pounds shortfall against the funding from
government.
CONCLUSION
The Council will be taking the decision not
to participate in the scheme because of the financial risk it
poses. Funding for the scheme has only been identified for two
years. The decision not to participate could affect our reputation
with residents particularly if neighbouring councils do participate
in the scheme.
CASE STUDY
5
RECONFIGURATION OF HOSPITAL SERVICES
What was the change?
In 2006 Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells
NHS Trust issued "a new direction for surgical and orthopaedic
care" consultation with preferred options for local hospital
services.
The proposals on which the Trust was consulting
related to two areas: Surgery; and Trauma and Orthopaedics. In
developing proposals for change two preferred options were identified:
(a) Surgery: Complex inpatient planned
(elective) surgery at Maidstone Hospital, emergency surgery at
Kent & Sussex Hospital, day case and 23 hour care on
both sites; and
(b) T&O: Carry out all inpatient
planned (elective) orthopaedic surgery and orthopaedic trauma
(emergency) operations at Kent & Sussex Hospital with day
case and 23 hour care on both sites.
The decision on the proposed change to service
was be made by the West Kent PCT Board.
Following a report from Maidstone's scrutiny
committee to the Kent Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC)
the decision to reconfigure hospital services was referred to
the Secretary of State by the HOSC. The Secretary of State for
Health agreed with the West Kent PCT board's original decision
to change services.
How did it happen?
The NHS Trust informed the Council at a Committee
meeting in July 2006 about the possible reconfiguration of
hospital services. The Council was only informed at public meetings
and not informed any earlier than the general public.
CONSULTATION
The Trust did not directly consult the local
authority; we picked it up through the press and responded as
part of the general public consultation to the NHS Trust direct
and to the Kent County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee
as evidence of the local view of the options proposed. We had
three months to respond to the consultation which was an adequate
timeframe, the Council however identified that the consultation
itself was inadequate as far as service development and planning
as can be seen from the recommendations from the report as outlined
in the conclusion below.
What was the effect?
Local services were changed in spite of opposition
from local people and the Council.
CONCLUSION
If the local authority had more power over important
local public services such as the health service than this service
would not have been changed against the wishes of local people.
See committee recommendations below:
Response to "A new direction for surgical
and orthopaedic care"
This committee and the report's signatories
wish to formally register their rejection of the options for change
set out in the "a new direction for surgical orthopaedic
care" consultation document. Key reasons for rejecting the
options are:
(a) The absence of a fully functioning urgent
care network.
(b) The increase in ambulance journey time could
put lives unnecessarily at risk.
(c) Maidstone A&E receives sufficient patients
to maintain the full range of A&E services.
(d) The adverse impact on training of postgraduate
trainees in the borough.
(e) The Trust has failed to carry the support
of clinicians in Maidstone.
(f) They have been managerially and finance-led.
(g) The adverse transport impact on patients
and relatives.
(h) The lack of involvement of patients and the
public in the development of the proposals.
(i) The consultation should not have taken place
prior to the completion of the Kent & Medway review.
(j) The proposals have been rushed and insufficient
lessons learned from other areas.
(k) The consultation document is not objective,
does not present realistic alternatives and the questionnaire
is too leading to generate meaningful responses.
(l) Genuine alternatives have not been proposed.
(m) The changes do not account for the increases
in population in the borough and the surrounding area.
CASE STUDY
6
LAND CHARGES
What was the change of power?
In 2005 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT)
looked into the provision of local land charges searches and the
provision of information to personal searchers.
A local authority search is in two parts namely
the LLC1* and the CON29**. A personal searcher is provided with
the LLC1 at a prescribed fee. A personal searcher then accesses
other council departments for the information held by them relating
to questions in the CON29.
The OFT report which has subsequently been endorsed
by the Justice Department and the DCLG has suggested that personal
search companies were being treated unfairly by local authorities
and often experienced time delays and poor service. The Justice
Department therefore recommended that councils that offered the
service themselves had to do so at cost and not make a profit
from the search and should make all of the information more freely
available.
How did it happen?
The OFT first looked into process and the Justice
Department provided the report. There was no choice given to local
authorities regarding the "service at cost" recommendation.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
Councils were consulted as part of Justice Department
report however the statutory instrument that was eventually sent
before Parliament was accidentally released before the consultation
exercise was completed.
What was the effect?
It is the best approximation that the Council
has lost revenue of between £200,000 and £250,000 per
year when the housing market is at its most fluid. This has obvious
revenue implications which has a knock on effect on other Council
services and operations.
* LLC1—Register of Local Land Charges,
Requisition for search and official certificate of search. This
is the official form to request a search of the Local Land Charges
Register. This will advise prospective purchasers of restrictions
on the use of the land eg Tree Preservation Order (prevents lopping,
topping or felling without specific permission), Specific Financial
Charge (a debt that runs with the land that purchasers would be
responsible for), Conservation Area (significantly restricts the
changes that can be made to a property) etc.
** CON29—Enquiries of local authority.
This is the official form to request further information held
by the local authority relating to the land or property eg Road
Adoption (is the nearest road to the area of search adopted, or
is there a bond in place), nearby road schemes, nearby rail schemes
(formerly the Channel Tunnel rail link was revealed), contaminated
land, footpaths (does one cross the area of search) etc.
Councillor Ben Sherreard
CASE STUDY
7
LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS
CONTEXT
The impetus for Local Strategic Partnerships
(LSPs) and Community Strategies came from the Local Government
Act 2000, the Strong and Prosperous Communities White Paper(2004)
and then the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health
Bill (2007).
The new statutory guidance "Creating Strong,
Safe and Prosperous Communities", July 2007, summarises this
as:
"The starting point for delivering better
outcomes for local partners, in the Local Strategic Partnership
(LSP), to create a shared vision and shared sense of priorities
for a place. The vision will be set out in a Sustainable Community
Strategy (SCS), which will describe how people who want to live
and work there want it to change over time."
The role of LSPs is for strategic co-ordination
where decisions on budgets etc are held by public agencies.
How did it happen?
In effect it was a national announcement supported
by Government legislation. Local councils didn't have a choice,
if they wanted to progress to becoming assessed as an excellent
council. There was, and still is, some concern and scepticism
from local councillors as to how effective these would be/are.
There was a fundamental weakness in LSPs outside neighbourhood
renewal areas where no additional funding was made available and
there was always the suspicion that the concept had been designed
for unitary councils and two-tier areas were more of an afterthought.
There has been consultation with councils and
partners over time, particularly voluntary and community sector,
and district councils now better reflect the challenge of delivering
this in a two-tier area.
The wider programme of neighbourhood renewal
was focussed on the areas with the highest levels of deprivation
rather than areas that might have smaller pockets where acute
deprivation did exist. This meant that the latter have had very
few resources made available and arguably are behind in tackling
issues such as teenage pregnancy.
The latest guidance does give clear statements
on LSPs in two-tier areas but some of these are unhelpful to districts
where there is now an option whether to have a district level
Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) or simply to adopt the county
SCS (vision for Kent). Also there is blurring of issues such as
restricting the duty to co-operate to the Local Area Agreement
(LAA) and hence county SCS but not the district SCS. This then
creates a perceived hierarchy of plans.
What was the effect?
There have been some positives-it enabled councils
to reach a greater understanding with their local communities
and involve their voluntary and community sector. In our case
prioritising a clean and tidy borough came out of the original
consultation with the public and other initiatives such as support
for carers, tackling teenage pregnancy and the development of
the gateway have all been strongly linked to the community strategy
adopted in 2003 and the LSP.
The financial issue is still unresolved—particularly
pooling or sharing budgets to support the work of the LSP or its
priority projects. There is a sense that LSPs have had more of
a role as a laboratory developing innovative projects, admittedly
some quite substantial and long-term, rather than tackling wider
public service improvement.
CONCLUSION
There is still an argument over the chair of
partnerships whether these should be the local political leadership
or more independent chairs that could provide continuity and neutrality
across the partners. Whatever the arrangements for chairing meetings,
the Chairman needs to be able to drive the partnership and its
programmes forward.
There is clear logic and role for LSPs in local
areas particularly to direct more joined up working to address
difficult and long-term issues (wicked issues). LSPs have been
relatively effective with limited or no resources and constant
change. Therefore, there is a strong argument that if a means
could be found for resourcing LSPs, their freedom and ability
deliver improved outcomes for local people could be greatly enhanced.
As we go forward to the new SCS councils should be given freedom
to develop their LSPs as they feel fit their circumstances.
Councillor Mike FitzGerald
32 Next Steps for Local Democracy, Leadership, accountability
and partnership, July 2008, p.8 Back
33
Lyons Inquiry into Local Government-Final Report, 2007 p.77 Back
| 
