Memorandum from Warwickshire County Council (BOP 14)

About Warwickshire County Council

The county of Warwickshire lies to the south and east of the West Midlands conurbation in a two-tier local authority area with five District/Borough areas.

The County Council serves a population of some 526,700 people. The population has been growing for the past three decades and is now home to 69,000 (15%) more people than at the start of the 1970's. Despite the focus of population within the main towns of the County, a significant part of Warwickshire is rural in nature. The population of Warwickshire is projected to reach a total of 637,400 by 2031.

Summary

· The Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to this Inquiry. It believes that whilst central and local government have complementary roles they are currently out of balance. The Council endorses the response of the County Council's Network and West Midlands Local Government Association

· The Council believes increased freedom and flexibility for local government is the best way to secure improved and cost effective local services. That local government should be given a general power of competence to allow innovative solutions to be found. This would reduce the regulatory/legislative burden which currently surrounds local government.

· The Council also believes that central government needs to recognise that local government is the centre of local democratic accountability and it needs to be empowered accordingly in relation to other local public services.

Further Devolution

1. It is probably true to say that at the moment local government does not take the full role it should in determining local priorities and solutions. Local priorities are overridden by a concentration on national priorities which are then micro-managed by central government through a host of regulatory provisions, performance targets and statutory guidance.

2. Whilst local government needs to be more assertive with central government, central government also needs to relax its controls to allow local government to take its place as a true partner. This requires a greater level of trust from government and with it the freedom for local government to find local solutions. Local authorities want to be contributors and implementers of high level policy where we create solutions fit for purpose.

3. A more focussed leaner regulatory/innovation industry which is made to work together, could replace the current universal micromanagement with targeted risk management. 'One size fits all' targets and performance measures do not allow for local variation or differences in local priorities. Variation in service delivery is not necessarily a negative but a positive reflection of the differences between communities.

4. Whilst the principles behind local area agreements are welcomed in practice they are a classic example of the skewing of local decision-making to meet national drivers rather than local priorities. Central government needs to reduce further the amount of targets and performance measures set for local government if there is to be any real opportunity for local choice. Alongside this the other public service partner agencies need similar levels of freedom to allow them to participate fully in finding solutions at a local level. Whilst the LAA and partnership working is high on the DCLG agenda we are not so sure that a similar level of importance is attached by other government departments.

5. Local Authorities still do not have a general power of competence. Whilst the well-being powers and the general power to contract go someway towards this aim local government is still often bedevilled by a complexity of legislation that inhibits confidence in innovation. A general power of competence would put local authorities on a firm footing for moving forward in partnership with others, provide confidence in its ability to respond and deal with local issues. It would also remove the need for some of the tortuous legislation that currently exists.

6. Central government and local government both have a democratic mandate. Other public services should be accountable to local government as the democratic centre at the local level. The increase in partnership working in order to achieve local integrated solutions has left a democratic deficit in the accountability of local decision-making.

7. Current systems of accountability for health and police services fail because they are too complicated and fragmented for the citizen to understand, for example, health accountability is largely to the Secretary of State and then at a local level there are Local Strategic Partnerships, Health Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Local Involvement Networks, Non-Executive Directors on NHS trusts and the new Foundation Trust arrangements.

8. Where does the citizen go if there is a major failure in health or police services at local level or if dissatisfied with the strategic direction of services? How do local elected representatives deliver solutions to complex problems if decisions about local issues are made elsewhere or ensure that public funds are spent most effectively in their area? Currently local government is responsible for the delivery of social care but this is rarely delivered in isolation from health services. However the ability of local elected representatives to effect major change in health service spending at a local level is severely hampered. One option is to give local authorities responsibility for commissioning local public services to enable them to manage the complexity of relationships between services. Further proposals scheduled to be brought forward in the Community Empowerment, Housing & Economic Regeneration Bill look likely to further complicate the landscape with proposals for local authorities to act as community advocates in response to petitions to Primary Care Trusts.

9. The excellent record of local authorities in delivering Gershon efficiency savings compared to other parts of the public sector indicates that political will is a powerful tool to drive out waste and provide the platform for new ways of working.

10. Whilst the development of overview and scrutiny goes some way to providing oversight it is does not provide any real democratic accountability. Public agencies can effectively walk away or simply pay lip service to any views expressed. Replacing scrutiny with a regulatory power located in localities whereby the public agencies have their joint activities subject to peer process with an ability to enforce activity shifts across the public bodies "from the perception of the end user" would enable more effective solutions at a local level.

11. The duty to co-operate needs to be strengthened into a duty to deliver outcomes in an integrated way. Other agency funding needs to be brought into the Area Based Grant vehicle to ensure monies can be moved around more imaginatively and encourage those who offer innovation.

12. Overall central government needs to concentrate on broad outcomes, and leave local delivery to local government.

Financial Autonomy

13. Currently central government has a heavy hand on the amount of resources available locally to deliver services. This influence is in the form of the amount of central government grant and the limitation of locally raised council tax through capping. This severely limits the freedoms and flexibilities of local government.

14. While greater freedom can be exercised through fees and charges this misses the real issue of a fundamental redesign of local government funding. Sir Michael Lyons spent a number of years looking at the problem of local government funding and it was very disappointing that significant changes did not materialise from his work.

15. Local authorities should be given greater freedom to raise income locally and they should be able to deliver standards of service which reflects the ability and willingness of the local community to pay. This means central government accepting that there may be variable standards of service. Although there may need to be some broad agreement over minimum service levels -the extent, the how and the way in which services are delivered should be a matter for local discretion.

16. Local accountability goes hand in hand with the control of fund raising. Capping undermines the notion of local accountability. Because of capping local communities cannot be given the choice of paying more for a higher level, or wider range, of service.

17. Government is pushing participatory budgeting at the margins but seems reluctant to allow democratically elected bodies similar freedoms in determining the priorities for spending in its area.

18. Local authorities could use charging and trading more if the legislation were simplified. The legislation has too many checks and balances which in turn generate uncertainty and discharge the use of the powers. The Audit Commission report 'Positively Charged' comments quite extensively on the current use of these powers and some of the constraints and barriers, including those arising from legislative provisions for example

'While there are valid reasons for these restrictions on freedom to charge, they create difficulties for councils and give rise to considerable debate. It is not always clear to councils or the public:

· what the rationale is for applying charging restrictions to some services and not others; for example, why councils cannot charge for lending printed materials from libraries, but can charge for lending audio-visual material; or why councils can make surpluses on charges for parking or cremations but are restricted to cost recovery in other areas;

· why councils have the power to set their own charges for services where a uniform approach to charging might be preferable; for example, those which the public considers to be necessary, rather than a matter of choice, for the service user, such as personal care services. This debate is heightened by the distinction drawn between these services and nursing and health services, which must be provided free of charge; and

· that the original rationale remains valid given changes in the context in which services are provided; for example, councils now provide building control services in competition with approved inspectors, reducing the monopoly position in the market which originally justified a price control.

Even where, as in the case of nationally set fees, the rationale is clear, to ensure a uniform approach to charging across the country, there can be significant financial consequences for councils that in turn impact, unequally, on local taxpayers. In the case of fees for planning applications, the government's own research reports that fees commonly fail to provide full recovery of the costs to councils of the activities they are required to undertake.'

Existing Powers

19. Local government services currently tend to be more nationally than locally driven through a plethora of regulation, ring fenced resources, centrally driven targets and guidance. Educational provision in particular is bound by significant levels of prescriptive guidance which considerably limit the ability to make local choices. An example is the guidance and regulations around proposals to establish post 16 provision, but there are many others. The fact that Local Area Agreements have 16 mandatory education indicators speaks for itself. How do we encourage people to engage in local democracy and empower communities to believe they can make a difference when there is this level of prescription?

20. There is a lack of trust in the way central government currently approaches local government and the messages from the various departments are mixed. While the government is currently pursuing an agenda to empower people, promote democracy, and encourage local authorities to become 'place shapers' it is also consulting on proposals to hold public elections for members of police authorities. Why complicate when you can simplify the arrangements at a local level and allow local government to take its proper place as the centre of democratic accountability? What sort of message does it send to the public about local government when central government ignores the democratic representatives which already exist to create new ones?

21. If local government are to be place shapers they need to be given the tools to do this. You cannot empower people effectively without empowering local democratic structures. The barriers to effective place shaping are well known. Partners who sign up to common local targets then struggle to maintain a focus on local relationships and priorities because of sudden changes in top down direction, organisational barriers which prevent local services integrating to meet local needs. These are further compromised by financial complexities which prevent decisions being implemented. Continual restructuring proposals in other parts of the public sector (notably health) distract from the partnership agenda.

22. Local authorities should have a general power of competence. They should be able to create arms length "Foundation Trusts" not dissimilar to the NHS model nationally, e.g. in the areas of Children's Services, Adult & Primary Health Care, Sustainability, if that is what the local solution requires.

23. A general power of competence could be accompanied by a general power to charge which could remove some of the complexities in the system. Central government would only need to legislate where charging should be prohibited supported by clear policy reasons. It would then be for the local authority to decide how and in what other circumstances it would levy charges for services.

24. Relationships between central and local government could be improved through the provision of an integrated training and development programme for local government officers and civil servants. This would make inter-changeability much easier with long term aim of a single workforce model.

Conclusion

· The Council believes that whilst central and local government have complementary roles they are currently out of balance.

September 2008