|
Memorandum from Oxfordshire County Council and
Oxfordshire District Councils excluding
Summary · The Oxfordshire local authorities believe that the freedom to raise and spend funding is critical to the success of further devolution. · We believe that reducing the amount of ring-fenced funding would enable local government to deliver successfully a greater range of local priorities than at present. · We support the proposal that local government be able to raise a greater proportion of its expenditure locally, providing that authorities can decide how to spend the funds and that central taxation is lowered to an equivalent degree - there needs to be a shift in the balance of funding. · Further, we believe that capping prevents local accountability and removes local responsibility for the delivery of services.
Further devolution Does local government need greater autonomy from central government? If so, in what ways? 1. This revolves around finance, there can be no autonomy without the funding to match the powers. 2. This is about the freedom to raise and spend funding, rather than more money necessarily. 3. It is not an easy process to change the balance of funding between local and national, however business rates are the obvious power to devolve to local government. If so, there would need to be an enforced relationship between council tax and business rates increases to prevent councils having low council taxes offset by high business rates.
Do local government's role and influence need to be strengthened in relation to other public services, such as policing and health? 4. Any strengthening must be obvious and transparent to the general public. 5. Current arrangements regarding policing allow little influence from local government and the recent green paper is likely to make this worse. 6. It is not clear 'who does what' in terms of delivering services and taking decisions; the powers made available in the Sustainable Communities Act will further complicate the issue, though this may or may not be of concern to the public.
Financial autonomy To what extent do the current arrangements for local government funding act as a barrier to local authorities fulfilling their 'place-shaping' role? In particular: - Does local government need greater financial freedom? If so, in what ways? 7. Overall, we would wish for a light-touch from central government. 8. There should be less funding that is ring-fenced or funding with conditions attached, allowing local government more control over where to spend it. 9. A framework of minimum standards which can be achieved without prescription of how much should be spent could be adopted. 10. Too much funding is CPA/target driven and the focus should be on incentives for good performance rather than penalties for poor performance. Further, greater autonomy could be granted to higher rated authorities. 11. Funding freedom is required for duties other than 'place-shaping'.
- Should local government be able to raise a greater proportion of its expenditure locally? 12. Yes, if local government can decide how to use the funding and if central taxation is lowered to an equivalent degree - there needs to be a shift in the balance of funding. 13. This should be raised through the council tax mechanism, being simple and accountable to the electorate. 14. However, we believe that some funding could be raised nationally that are now raised locally, for example the Policing budget.
- What effect does the capping of council tax rises have on local accountability? 15. Capping prevents local accountability. 16. Councils are accountable for their council tax rises and capping removes local responsibility for delivery of local services.
Existing powers To what extent are local government services a product of national or local decision-making? 17. Services are driven by available funding, thus they follow national priorities. Though this varies to an extent, dependent on the service (e.g. LTP offers little flex) 18. The three areas that concern the public the greatest - police, health and education - we have no control over. Further, these services are divided by government in terms of delivery streams, leading to a fragmented, unjoined-up approach at the local level. 19. National decision-making can have a major financial impact on authorities. For example the concessionary bus fare scheme has had a very substantial impact on the budgets of local councils in Oxfordshire. 20. Regarding health, there is a proposal from some local members for locally elected representatives (councillors) to take on full time positions to form a board to set direction and agree the budget
Does local government make adequate use of its existing powers, such as its well-being, charging and trading powers? What scope is there for greater use of those powers? 21. Trading powers are used but there is greater scope for expanding this - perhaps local government could be braver in this regard. 22. Motivated councillors are key to expanding our usage of these powers. 23. However, we feel that there is a lack of advice, money and time available to support and make full use of these powers.
Improving the relationship between central and local government: What difference has the central-local concordat made to central-local relations? 24. Most councillors (and many officers) were not aware of its existence - thus little impact so far.
Should an independent commission be established to oversee the financial settlement for local government? 25. We are unsure what this question is asking, as setting the national budget is clearly a political decision for the government of the day. However there is some local sympathy for the idea of a government politically allocating a pot, then a commission making the decision about how it should be divided between authorities.
The constitutional position Given
the 26. Places could be given in the Lords to local government, acting as a brake on misuse of powers.
What
role should Parliament have in the protection of local government's position
within the 27. We would like the central-local concordat established in legislation but not necessarily as part of a written constitution
September 2008 |