Memorandum from Kent County Council (BOP 16)

 

Kent County Council (KCC) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Communities and Local Government House of Common Select Committee Inquiry on the Balance of Power: Central and Local Government.

 

As a 4 star local authority, KCC has pushed to the limits what we are able to deliver and achieve for local people within the current boundaries set by central government. Covering a population of 1.4m, overseeing a gross budget of £2.2 billion and with a string of successful inspections of services under our belt, we would like our record of achievement rewarded through a process of genuine empowerment.

 

We believe that the balance of power is unfairly cast towards the national and regional tier, at the expense of local democracy, accountability and voter turnout.

 

As a 4 star authority, KCC calls for:

 

· devolution of powers, functions and expenditure from the national and regional tiers on economic development areas such as transport, skills and planning to sub-regions and individual councils through a process of "earned autonomy";

· national government to set the framework of minimum standards, and let local people hold local authorities to account;

· recognition from central government that local authorities need to undertake economic development - and not economic assessment only as indicated in the Sub-National Review - in order to properly fulfil our place-shaping role and exercise our powers of wellbeing in the economic, social and environmental arenas;

· high performing upper tier authorities to be able to bid to run other public services such as health, probation, prisons and policing within their localities;

· central government to trust well performing councils to take on greater powers and to make real inroads in reducing welfare spending for people of working age, provide skilled workforces to match the demands of local economies and take full control over economic development in their areas;

· control of Incapacity Benefit to be handed to upper-tier authorities to ensure close coordination with welfare-to-work programmes;

· local government to be strengthened and empowered with improved financial autonomy. This would include a return of the National Non-Domestic Rate to local authorities, enabling councils to attract particular industries to their areas and thereby create a competitive edge;

· the budgets of local authorities, regional and local public agencies be pooled through the Area Based Grant, linked to joint objectives and outcomes outlined in Local Area Agreements and Multi-Area Agreements;

· a new constitutional relationship between central and local government, acknowledging and properly empowering local government to undertake a true "place-shaping" role.

Background

 

1. KCC has a population of 1.4m people and oversees a gross budget of £2.2bn. In the past year, the County Council has been awarded the following accolades: another 4 star rating in its Corporate Performance Assessment; the highest level four award by the Audit Commission for its use of resources despite ever tougher criteria; the top possible rating for Adult Social Services by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) for the sixth consecutive year and an OFSTED inspection which graded services to children and young people in Kent as good with 'service management and capacity to improve' rated as outstanding.

 

2. This string of successful inspections of KCC's services reflects the expertise, knowledge, capacity and sound use of resources that reside at county level to provide personalised, tailor made services designed to meet individual needs and wishes.

 

3. KCC believes that localities are best placed and fully capable of finding and implementing their own solutions to many of the complex problems that face modern society. With strong leadership and close collaboration, Kent's local agencies have agreed shared outcomes and discovered new and effective ways of meeting the needs of local people. This is why Kent agreed to pilot the first round of local public service agreements (2001); pioneered and introduced the Kent Service Board (2004) and in 2005 we were one of 21 pilot local authorities in the first round of Local Area Agreements. Our objective has been for KCC to influence the totality of public spending in Kent, some £7 billion, and to encourage all parts of the public sector to collaborate in the delivery of local priorities. As each successive scheme has been negotiated, however, there seems to be a tension between having narrowly defined targets determined at the centre, and holding on to the big picture of what it is we are trying to achieve. This year we signed off Kent Agreement 2, but the tensions remain.

 

4. We would like to be empowered to do much more and believe that our track record in delivery earns us the right to assume strategic decision-making powers on issues currently determined by executive and regional agencies. We fully back the approach promoted by the Lyons Inquiry that local authorities should develop arrangements between themselves to take strategic decisions on economic development issues like transport, planning and skills. This must be through a process of "earned autonomy"; and we agree with Lyons' view that central government should test those arrangements to ensure that they are robust, sensible and capable of taking hard choices.

 

Stop micro-managing local government: empower and devolve

 

5. KCC has fully stretched the boundaries within which we can operate and we would like to do much more, dependent on genuine empowerment. Central government must adhere to the principle of decentralisation with flexibility and innovation being a key ingredient to outcomes. Underpinning all of this should be an aspiration to continue to transform some of our public services to become more outcome focussed and customer centric. Kent would much rather enter into a serious debate about the half dozen or so longer term public policy outcomes facing residents in Kent rather than subject ourselves to the micro management of 35 short term targets.

 

6. Local government therefore requires greater autonomy from regional as well as central government in order to properly fulfil its place-shaping role and exercise its powers of wellbeing in the economic, social, environmental and health arenas. KCC would like to see real devolution from the national and regional level to local authorities. Multi-functional authorities and sub-regional partnerships would generate greater efficiencies and joined-up working in tackling crime, lawlessness, youth and long-term unemployment and the transition from education to work, as well as achieve significant reductions in welfare dependency.

 

7. The Local Government Act 2003 granted excellent, good and fair councils the power to trade for a profit by operating any of their ordinary functions through a company in which the council in question has an interest. Operating under the same principle, and following on from the Lyons Inquiry, councils rated as excellent and good should be eligible to run other services such as health, probation, prisons and policing if they so wish. It would be a process of "earned autonomy", with central government able to call back in services if judged by the Audit Commission to be poorly run. We support the approach the Government is taking on requiring local authorities to come together at a sub-regional level in distribution of LABGI and LSC monies, but we believe that other funding streams should also be devolved from regional to sub-regional level.

 

8. However, the Sub-National Review (SNR) signifies further reinforcement and strengthening of the regional tier at the expense of local government, although the rhetoric suggests otherwise. Although we were pleased to see in the SNR recognition of the importance of local government in the requirement to undertake an economic assessment of their areas, we also feel that local authorities have the expertise and capacity to deliver economic development programmes as was mentioned in the first version of the SNR.

 

Devolve and cut welfare spending

 

9. We believe that a more localised system of delivering welfare to work programmes could help to make significant reductions in benefit dependency. In Kent, around £800 million is spent each year on benefits for people of working age. Significant decisions on welfare are made nationally with little regard to local circumstances or need.

 

10. The Kent Supporting Independence Programme (SIP) operates to support welfare dependent people back into work and towards financial independence. It is just one example of how a national challenge can be effectively addressed by a pioneering local government programme backed up by coordinated local action and strong political leadership.

 

11. A key target in the first Kent Local Area Agreement was a support programme managed and delivered by KCC to help long-term Incapacity Benefit (more than two years) claimants back into full-time work. We have helped at least 105 people into work in 18 months through the Kent NOW programme. If we assume that these 105 people had stayed on benefits for another year, we have saved the public purse £940,000 in one year. These people instead have actively contributed to the economy rather than being reliant on Incapacity Benefit, Housing and Council Tax payments. If we exclude pump-priming and reward monies from the Kent Local Public Service Agreement to establish the scheme, the total saving is £590,000.

 

12. The average length of time an Incapacity Benefit claim lasts for is 9 years. Using this calculation, getting 105 people off Incapacity Benefit and into work has saved over £8.1m in benefit payments, all for an initial outlay of just £350k. Since the Kent SIP was launched in 2002, independent research by Oxford University suggests that a benefit claimant living in a disadvantaged community which receives targeted action through the SIP is 30 per cent more likely to exit welfare dependency than someone living elsewhere in the South East.

 

13. Greater autonomy for local authorities to deliver welfare to work programmes would therefore reap benefits for central government in reducing the overall welfare bill. KCC calls for a localisation of welfare to work budgets, including upper-tier authority control of Incapacity Benefit, which would enable a much more responsive, tailor-made approach to local demands and circumstances. In addition, benefit savings made locally should be reinvested into further preventative or back-to-work activity in the local area. Interventions to meet local conditions (e.g. around timings of benefit payments) should be permitted and targeted towards local priorities and priority groups.

 

Devolve and upskill

 

14. The Government has acknowledged in the SNR that economic development can only be achieved through devolution from the centre to localities, and it needs to do the same with skills. Upskilling of the workforce is vital to improve the economic performance of the UK economy and local government needs to be equipped with the levers to make this happen.

 

15. If as a country we are to be effective at meeting the skills challenge, and we accept that the education and training system needs to be matched to the needs of local economies to benefit students and employers alike, then it abundantly clear that the education and training framework needs to be shaped on a sub-regional basis to match local sub-regional economies. National or regionally imposed solutions that do not reflect the real sub-regional economy will not work.

 

16. However, Education and Skills funding is also geared towards the regional level at the expense of local authorities. For example, employer-led Employment and Skills Boards have been established throughout England. These will play a key role in promoting economic prosperity at the sub-regional level through bringing together key partners to provide joint demand-led solutions for employers within each area. However, Regional Development Agencies have been tasked to work with local authorities and Education and Skills Boards to identify priority areas in each local community, including those for labour force development and employment. However, small businesses prefer to liaise with organisations that are closest to them, not remote regional agencies that could be hundreds of miles away. Local authorities are best placed to take the lead on working with a range of stakeholders to ensure that skills needs within localities are addressed and funded.

 

17. The move towards demand led skills and training system is welcome, although we have argued that a fully devolved system to local government would allow both greater transparency and a more integrated delivery than the system outlined in "Raising Expectations" can deliver. Central to tackling the skills agenda is a huge increase in the number of apprenticeships for young people as a real option to the traditional academic route. However, the Government's approach has been to establish a national quango in the form of the proposed National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) with primarily a regional 'field force'. Yet, the reality is that local economies are sub-regional in nature, and regional and national delivery structures do not have the local intelligence, flexibility or links to local businesses - especially Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) - necessary to understand local needs and make the system work. In Kent, we have our own apprenticeship service in the form of Kent Success. Launched in the autumn of 2006, KCC currently has 130 apprentices within the organisation and our target is to have 250 KCC apprentices by 2010. Through the Kent Partnership (our Local Strategic Partnership), KCC is also actively working across the public, private and voluntary sectors to promote the employment of 1000 apprentices in Kent by 2010. Our local scheme has been able to deliver due to its proximity and relationship building with local partners and business that just is not possible when delivery is based on a national and regional scale. We would like to see the role, function and budget of the National Apprenticeship Service devolved to local government which is ideally placed to meet the apprenticeship challenge.

 

 

 

Devolve transport

 

18. We would like to see a significant strengthening of local government's role in running local transport services. The current system is also highly confused, with motorways and trunk roads the responsibility of the Highways Agency and all other non-private roads the responsibility of upper-tier authorities. We believe that upper-tier authorities should be granted Highways Agency powers for non-motorway trunk roads, along with maintenance budgets and transport planning powers residing within their boundaries.

 

Trust and empower local government to spend according to local needs

 

19. The Committee has posed a series of questions about financial autonomy for local authorities. There is a contradiction at the heart of public service reform since 1997, which is where the real question about the balance of funding should be addressed. The contradiction lies in the conflict between a centrally driven target culture reflecting siloed thinking between Government Departments coming down to local government, and the joining-up of local services to provide seamless services to the public. The target culture has been used to drive performance, but at the same time, the policy challenges that matter most to people, such as safer streets and healthier lifestyles, depend on local joining-up of public services. The former have thrived at the expense of the latter.

 

20. Delivering joined-up services requires greater devolution to sub-regions to set priorities and spend budgets. As part of a deal with central government reflecting KCC's track record of delivery, we would like to see pooled budgets in the county between local authorities and public agencies to spend on preventative health, welfare to work programmes and post-16 education for example. Whilst we welcome the greater flexibility for local authorities in allocation of local resources that the Area Based Grant (ABG) permits, it should include a wider category of revenue streams to allow for greater coordination between public bodies. The ABG does not for example include preventative health monies, although the County Council's Corporate Strategy, Towards 2010, and Kent's Public Health strategy is targeted towards encouraging people to exercise and take care of their health. The lack of a coherent approach between funding streams can inadvertently provide disincentives to work towards positive outcomes, such as investing in preventative care of the elderly to avoid hospitalisation.

 

21. We therefore believe that the ABG should be administered through Local Area Agreements, which would permit public authorities in a given area to work together, define their own priorities and shift policy emphasis where they see fit. A single funding pot for place shaping and delivering personalised services would encourage true partnership working between a range of public agencies to overcome silos and allow greater efficiencies. Expenditure currently controlled by regional and sub-regional agencies should be aligned to joint objectives and outcomes contained within Local Area Agreement and Multi-Area Agreement processes.

 

22. The failure to provide a joined-up approach to funding is evident. For example, Accident and Emergency services are being reduced at Maidstone Hospital and a specialist A&E service is being developed at Pembury Hospital in Tunbridge Wells. But transport and access from Maidstone to Tunbridge Wells is poor, and there is no funding allocated in the Local Transport Plan to build the desperately needed Colts Hill Bypass which is essential to enable residents from Maidstone (some 15 miles away) to get there. The lack of a coordinated and strategic approach to decision-making occurs when there is a fragmented system of delivery. As a result, local residents suffer.

 

Trust and empower councils to set their own spending priorities

 

23. Greater financial freedom for local authorities should be granted through local determination over the split between capital and revenue funding, with a local power to vary according to need and to support innovation and allow people to manage their own care, for example use of innovative technology to support independent living. KCC's approach is to support preventative services and equip people with technology to be able to live independent lives within their own homes for as long as possible. This requires a move away from the "bricks and mortar" approach, for example construction of new residential homes, and towards new technologies that enable people to commission and procure their own care packages, tailored to meet individual needs and wishes. Allowing councils greater flexibility over how they allocate expenditure between capital and revenue streams is essential to respond to the needs of individual clients. Capital investment also requires significant ongoing revenue expenditure, which is increasingly difficult to find in today's troubled financial climate and with an ever-increasing demand on services. A new approach to developing services tailored to individuals is therefore a necessity to ensure that we meet our service obligations.

 

24. Debate has focussed for many years on the powers councils should or should not be given to raise a greater proportion of their expenditure locally. However, we believe that residents are more concerned about how public money is spent, regardless of whether it is raised centrally or locally. It is therefore imperative that local authorities raise their game in communicating with residents how their money is being spent in more innovative ways than the annual Council Tax bill. The issue we feel is more important is that local government should have greater discretion over how it spends its budgets, so that we are able to respond to a greater degree to locally defined priorities rather than centrally prescribed targets.

 

25. We would however like to see greater discretion for councils in the levying of National Non- Domestic Rates (NNDR). In the early 1980s, councils were dependent on central government for just over half their funding. That figure is now around 75 per cent. At the end of the 1980s, before business rates were centralised, 30 per cent of local government income derived from this source. Although the issue of equalisation would need to be carefully considered, the NNDR should be re-localised, allowing local authorities the freedom to vary business rates to attract a range of industries to locate in targeted areas. For example, if an upper-tier authority wishes to attract creative or high-tech industries to their area, they should be equipped with the appropriate levers to attract such businesses in order to create a competitive advantage for their local economy. Re-localisation of NNDR must go in hand with sub-regional devolution as local authorities cannot have a significant impact over economic development in their areas if one of the main financial levers is held elsewhere.

 

26. Capping undermines the principle of local accountability and should be abolished. Instead, local authorities should make the case to residents if they feel compelled to raise local taxation beyond 5 per cent. Capping is seen as an instrument to threaten and punish local authorities, but delivering service priorities within an increasingly restrictive funding envelope requires hard choices between service cuts or increasing council tax. Local politicians are accountable for their decisions via the ballot box and that is the exercise of true accountability and genuine democracy.

 

Evidence of "regionalisation" of local government power and spending

 

27. Recent years have seen increasing centralisation of government funding, particularly in relation to transport. Any project of £5m in value (a rough estimate is that this would buy less than 1km of single carriageway) or more requires central approval before proceeding and a complex transport planning environment with local plans assessed centrally for robustness. Furthermore, the current Regional Funding Advice exercise being undertaken by the Government signals a further strengthening of the powers of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). For example, RDAs have been asked to advise on the £1.3 billion per year currently allocated to local authorities in "block funds" for capital highways maintenance and smaller projects to enhance traffic management, public transport and road safety. The Treasury document states that these funds should be "allocated in ways which are consistent with regional strategies as well as national objectives". This reflects an increasing regionalisation of local powers and expenditure, which will further curtail the ability of councils to fulfil their place-shaping role and the power of wellbeing.

 

Delivering services tailored to local needs

 

28. Local authorities have considerable discretion to deliver services of their own making rather than central government prescription. In 2007, KCC was the first local authority in the country to launch Kent TV, an on-line broadband television channel. It was launched with the desire to communicate with people on a modern platform and marks a step change in the way local government communicates with local people and the wider public.

 

29. The Kent "Gateway" model, initiated by KCC in partnership with district councils across the county, is a uniquely innovative retail-based concept that seeks to offer seamless access to public services for local people. Gateway is complementary to web, telephone and traditional home-visiting and operates on the principle that services follow customer need - not the other way round. By Spring 2009, 7 Gateway centres will have opened in Kent, offering convenient physical access to front-line customer advisers and officers from over 30 agencies covering central and local government and the voluntary sector. Within 5 years we would hope that all 12 district areas of Kent will be covered by Gateways. We would also like to extend services to private sector partners, for example pharmacies. Services range from careers advice and help to tackle substance misuse, to smoking cessation, GP referrals and assistance for victims of domestic violence, among many others. Internet access and housing and business advice is also provided along with information on adult education courses. Gateway is a natural delivery channel for joined up services from Local Strategic Partnership in line with the place shaping role of local government. This model seeks to implement the principle of responsive services and empowered communities as enshrined in the Local Government White Paper 2006, by devolving power to communities and giving local people a greater say and influence over local public services.

 

30. The Kent Freedom Pass is another example of innovation in local government in the exercise of the discretionary power. KCC first introduced the Kent Freedom Pass scheme in June 2007, providing bus travel free at the point of use to students aged 11-16 attending school in three pilot areas. Since then it has proven very successful, encouraging young people away from car travel and on to Kent's bus network. The scheme has been extended to a further four pilot areas, with the entire county being covered by 2009. This has benefits for the Kent environment and transport system in helping to reduce carbon emissions and the number of cars on the roads.

 

31. We have taken the principle of Direct Payments for social care a step further through an innovative scheme known as the Kent Card, which makes it easier for clients to manage their own support by automating the payment process, thereby improving efficiency and cost effectiveness. The client card has been developed in partnership with the Royal Bank of Scotland. It works like a debit card by enabling clients to pay for services using funds supplied by KCC. The card is supplied to people with support needs. Cardholders can top up the card with their assessed contribution or additional money they may wish to use to pay for their service/support. Because the Kent Card is VISA badged, it can be used in over 20 million outlets world-wide and 843,000 outlets in the UK, including online and over the telephone.

 

32. At KCC we see our role as empowering staff and residents to work together to create safer places to live. For this reason, in 2002 KCC established the Kent Community Wardens scheme. This began with a band of 12 wardens as part of a three-year pilot scheme. It delivered such early success that numbers were increased within six months and in March 2005 a new training centre - the first of its kind in the UK - was opened to help bring the team of wardens up to 100. Community wardens aim to help the people of Kent to live safely and independently in their neighbourhoods and communities. They provide a visible uniformed presence to tackle anti-social behaviour. Many wardens are regarded as the focal point for the communities they serve and their mobile telephone number is accessible to all. Wardens work closely with Police, local authorities and other agencies and are a useful source of information. Alongside tackling anti-social behaviour, Community Wardens also raise community awareness of problems such as bogus callers preying on vulnerable people in their homes. They address environmental issues such as fly tipping, graffiti and vandalism and engage with the young, elderly and vulnerable in activities such as youth clubs and sporting events, coffee mornings and advice surgeries. If they don't know the answer to a query, they know someone who will. This scheme has proved very successful in providing a reassuring presence to local communities in Kent.

Use of Trading Powers

 

33. As already mentioned, well performing councils have the ability to trade in any of their ordinary functions by establishing a company in which they have an interest. KCC was one of the first authorities in the country to take advantage of this freedom granted under the Local Government Act 2003. KCC spends more than £840 million on buying goods, services and works from suppliers every year. We formed KCC Commercial Services to provide goods and services for the council's own directorates and for a range of approved public bodies. Some of its services are also available to local businesses and other commercial companies and to schools, sports groups and charities. It is a self-funding unit, tasked to deliver products and services that represent best value for money and meet local government purchasing legal requirements. Its staff are experts in their respective fields and provide a quality service.

 

34. We now operate a 'one-stop shop' for educational supplies, stationery and some furniture; a complete design and printing service, with bulk-mailing option; the largest local authority energy purchasing organisation in the UK - KCC acts for 70 local authorities and conducts business valued at £191 million per annum - and provider of energy management consultancy services; grounds maintenance, landscape construction and street cleaning services; maintenance and repair of electronic and electrical equipment, and gymnastic equipment; fire extinguisher servicing and training; professional passenger transport procurement for our council services and other users; supply of lease cars, commercial vehicles and minibuses for local authorities, schools and other users and provider of vehicle hire without driver; a wide range of vehicle maintenance, conversion work and other transport engineering services and Passenger Services and provision of public and school transport services and vehicle hire with driver; and minibus and coach driver training.

 

35. But trading as a publicly owned operator within a commercial environment has been beset by red tape. For example, if we wish to purchase goods and services that cost more than £144,000 we are required under EU procurement laws to advertise our requirements in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC). We are then bound to follow strict timescales and seek at least five tenders before we can proceed with a decision. In effect, from start to finish the process can take six months including a two week cooling-off period where we are required to provide, if requested, feedback to unsuccessful tenderers. In the meantime, we are not allowed to give the go-ahead to the successful contractor to proceed until the two week period has expired. Whilst we appreciate the need to demonstrate fair treatment and transparency in our processes, local authorities cannot operate on a level playing field compared to private sector operators who are not obliged to follow these requirements. To put it into context, the simple purchase of a coach for our transport arm has to go through this laborious process. We appreciate that all public agencies across the EU are subject to this regulatory environment, but it is an issue of which the Committee needs to be aware in relation to the limits on local authorities being able to trade effectively. Private companies are not bound by these procedures and can operate in an environment relatively free of trading restrictions compared to local authorities.

 

 

 

 

Approach to charging

 

36. We are opposed to charging for many services, as we believe that this acts as a double whammy on top of council tax. It is akin to asking people to pay for services twice, unless they are very clearly discretionary or new services, for example charging for elderly care transport. While we could introduce more charging, we are opposed to it on the grounds that it tends to impact unfairly on the elderly and disabled that we want to support. However, sometimes difficult decisions have to be made between cutting services and introducing/increasing charging.

 

Exercise of Wellbeing power

 

37. In relation to exercise of power of wellbeing, KCC was the first local authority in the country to jointly appoint with two Primary Care Trusts a Director of Public Health. This was followed by publication of a Public Health strategy devised in partnership with the 12 District Councils and two Primary Care Trusts in Kent. Most of this strategy is aimed at promoting health whether through improving well-being, preventing disease or promoting healthy living for those with short and long term conditions. The document also outlined our commitment to and ongoing work with parents and the voluntary sector to promote health and wellbeing in Kent.

 

38. We have already utilised our power of wellbeing to provide housing or new types of community homes for the older population. The multi-million pound Better Homes, Active Lives Private Finance Initiative (PFI) will deliver 340 units of new social housing for vulnerable people in Kent. We have procured the project on behalf of and in partnership with10 local district councils. It is one of the largest projects of its type in the country and will receive PFI credits from the Department of Communities and Local Government. The partnership between the district councils and the county council has provided a local perspective as well as the strategic capacity to bring stakeholders needs together within a single project. It is regarded as a flagship project nationally and we often receive requests for advice from other local authorities who are looking to undertake PFI projects in partnership with their neighbouring councils. The private sector recognises that the partnership has produced considerable efficiencies in bringing together a number of small clusters of housing from across local authority boundaries. After a year of negotiations, Housing 21 has signed a deal with the partnership between KCC and ten of the district and borough councils in the county to build and run a total of 340 apartments across Kent.

 

39. The power of economic, social and environmental wellbeing also extends to regenerating areas to attract jobs, new homes and investment. We were disappointed therefore that the revised SNR document incorporates an economic assessment duty rather than economic development duty for local authorities as published in the first version. Local authorities should be equipped with full economic development powers in order to fully exercise this duty as has already been argued here.

 

The Central-Local Concordat

 

40. The Central-Local Concordat states that both central and local government have the responsibility to use taxpayers' money well and devolve power. In the local arena, however, local quangos bypass local authorities and are estimated to account for up to 60 per cent of local public spending. Such bodies include Jobcentre plus, the Learning and Skills Council, the Housing Corporation, health trusts, the Environment Agency and others. We do not believe that this is a sound use of public money nor good news for democracy and accountability. The SNR does not give local authorities grounds for significant optimism either regarding the empowerment of councils, although we welcome the approach towards sub-regional working as long as it is underpinned by real devolution.

 

 

 

An independent commission to oversee local government settlements

 

41. We do not believe that an independent commission be established to oversee the financial settlement for local government. This would act to undermine the principle of accountability of central government to its electors. The elected administration of the day should explain how and why it has prioritised expenditure in particular policy and geographical areas.

 

 

Local government: the constitutional position

 

42. Local Government has no legal mandate to act as a balance on the powers of central government. Ministerial prerogative as well as our parliamentary system means that local government is defined by statute of Parliament with its structure, composition and function changeable at the behest of the majority (governing) party. The de-facto protection for local government arises from central government's increasing dependency on local government to deliver its programme and priorities, the unpopularity of local government reform per se with the public who have affinity and connection with their local councils, and the financial costs of local government reform often outweigh the net financial benefits in the short-medium term. However, none of the above is a de-jure means of protecting local government, as the recent local government reform programme has highlighted decisions about the future basis of local government generally and in specific localities fundamentally remains a matter of ministerial prerogative.

 

43. It is difficult to see how local government could have some form of legal or constitutional protection without significant change to the current constitutional arrangements in the UK, either through embedding the right of local government to exist, with its functions, finance and structure incorporated within a codified (written) constitution which would could only be amended with special measures (i.e. by a two thirds majority) by the legislature with independent oversight through the courts.

 

September 2008