Memorandum by the Lifting the Burdens
Task Force (BOP 43)
1. The Task Force is an independent, local
government practitioner body set up by the Secretary of State
for Local Government. It comprises nine local authority chief
Executives and senior directors and the LGA. Over the past two
years the Task Force has been working with councils in England
to secure real and rapid reductions in the performance management
related and other bureaucratic burdens placed on local government
by central government that hinder effective, innovative or efficient
service delivery at the local level.
2. We have produced a series of reports
aimed at specific Government Departments on various policy areas.
The reports make practical suggestions for where changes on the
ground could make a big difference in terms of reducing the burden
to release resources to re-direct to the front line or making
processes more effective. This should then contribute to bringing
about a new, central-local relationship where local government
is no longer subversive or dependent on central government to
tell them how things should be done but has far greater responsibility,
capacity and confidence to manage their own affairs. These reports
can be accessed at: www.communities.gov.uk/liftingburdens
CO -DESIGN
OF POLICY
AND PERFORMANCE
FRAMEWORKS
3. A common aim for all our work has been
to bring into sharper focus the impacts that policies and processes,
that are imposed by central government, have on local government;
from needing Government Office approval to elements of a Local
Development Scheme, to the amount of time and effort put into
measuring indicators that are not meaningful nor help improve
outcomes or, having to join up and make sense of the plethora
of regional quangoes and agencies that confuse the improvement
landscape, are often cumbersome in their response and at worst
conflicting in their priorities or advice.
4. The Government has admitted that in the
past it has tended to respond to challenges with centralist measures
such as ring-fenced grants, new initiatives with performance targets
or a central unit to monitor progress. Such centrally driven,
prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach has fostered a culture
of dependency in local government where council's attentions are
on the latest target, indicator or guidance from Whitehall rather
than local residents. Whilst local government has made great strides
in improvement with 80% of councils now judged to be performing
strongly or well, it is acknowledged that such centralist approaches
are insufficient if we are to continue to rise to the challenge
of further improvement, efficiency, choice and personalisation
of services.
5. A central tenant to the Lifting the Burdens
Task Force reports and the Local Government White Paper 2006 has
been that outcomes are best delivered when processes are led locally
and resources are devolved as close as possible to the front line.
This means the central-local relationship has to shift from one
of "do to us" to "do with us".
For example as a result of the dialogue between LBTF and DCMS
they are now exploring setting up a local government sounding
board to learn from the Local Area Agreement process and local
authorities own local targets for how they can design better outcome
indicators in the future. The Department of Health has set up
joint working groups between the Department, Inspectorate and
local government to fundamentally appraise the data and information
collections required for adult social care and the DCSF are also
taking steps to set up transparent arrangements to allow for Directors
of Children's Services and DSCF to jointly develop policy and
performance frameworks.
6. These examples are extremely positive
but are not yet fully implemented nor the mainstream way of working
in Government. It is only by working together and bringing about
a more equitable relationship between central and local government
where together we co-design policy and performance frameworks
rather than simply being consulted, that we will be able to achieve
better outcomes that will not have unintended consequences and
not be seen as a burden.
LOCAL CHOICE
7. An inevitable consequence of the current
direction of travel towards less central prescription and more
local choice is that priorities and solutions will be different
in each area. This is often referred to as a "postcode lottery"
which implies a matter of chance and is therefore deemed unacceptable
and unfair. However if, as it is widely agreed, locally based
decision making is essential if we are to bring about more responsive
and innovative services and better outcomes for people, then we
have to bring about a greater respect for difference at the local
level that will emerge as a result.
8. In its reports, the Lifting Burdens Task
Force covers three issues which are key to enabling greater local
decision-making. These were: priority setting, funding, and accountability.
9. The new Local Area Agreements with fewer
national targets (up to 35 plus 16 statutory education
targets) are intended to create the space for local authorities
and their partners to be able to include more local priorities
than was previously the case. Of the 150 local area agreements
signed off in July 2008, the number of local targets averages
10 per LAA and tends to favour the local economy. This has
been a positive development; however, the negotiation process
did highlight some tensions between striking a balance between
locally and nationally driven priorities. Although LAA preparations
have made Government Departments think about which issues matter
in which places, in some cases for the first time, LAAs still
seem sometimes to be the product of national decisions on what
matters locally. It is important therefore that this new way of
working and thinking about place is given time to bed in and mature
so that Local Area Agreements do truly become the vehicle for
local priority setting.
10. Our reports also found that the greatest
practical burdens exist when local authorities have to assemble
a myriad of separate funds, each with their own distinct processes
and restrictions. This is mainly caused by the short-term, fragmented
and uncertain nature of the majority of funding streams. The introduction
of Area Based Grant aimed to reduce the number of ring-fenced
grants, providing local authorities with the flexibility to spend
the money on locally determined priorities with fewer restrictions
and less monitoring. The full impact of this flexibility is yet
to be felt locally as current commitments have to be worked through,
but further efforts are needed to continue to reduce the number
of ring-fenced and specific grants particularly in the area of
regeneration and infrastructure. Furthermore, the Task Force also
recommended that the justification for setting fees nationally
is reviewed to allow local authorities greater flexibility over
the fees and charges it can set.
11. Finally, in terms of accountability,
the trade-off for less central accountability is greater local
accountability. A poll by Ipsos Mori in April 2007 revealed
that people do not mind if councils provide different levels of
services if they are told they will be consulted and the outcomes
are deemed to be fair. Local authorities are therefore looking
to improve the way they engage with, understand and are accountable
to their communities for the decisions taken locally. It is essential
that local government has the capacity and capability to step
in and fill the space vacated by central government in terms of
prioritisation, decision-making and accountability. If we fail
to do so, we will leave the door open for central government to
bring back the imposed, prescriptive and burdensome elements we
have argued so hard to change and further requests for devolution
will more likely be denied.
September 2008
| 
