UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
To be published as HC 547-vi

House of COMMONS

Oral EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE the

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT Committee

LOCALISM

Monday 10 January 2011

CLLR STEPHEN HOUGHTON, PAUL THORPE,

CLLR BEN ADAMS and HELEN RILEY

steve evans, robert walsh, cllr david milsted and mark hebditch

CLLR MICHAEL GREEN and dr andrew povey

Evidence heard in Public Questions 256 - 334

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Communities and Local Government Committee

on Monday 10 January 2011

Members present:

Mr Clive Betts (Chair)

Heidi Alexander

Bob Blackman

Simon Danczuk

Mike Freer

Stephen Gilbert

George Hollingbery

James Morris

Mark Pawsey

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Cllr Stephen Houghton CBE, Leader, and Paul Thorpe, Members and Scrutiny Support Manager, Barnsley Council; Cllr Ben Adams, Lead Cabinet Member for Communities and Culture, and Helen Riley, Director of Strategy and Transformation and Assistant Chief Executive, Staffordshire County Council, gave evidence.

Q256 Chair: We welcome the first set of witnesses this afternoon. For the sake of our records in this sixth evidence session of our inquiry into localism could you give your names and the organisations you represent?

Paul Thorpe: My name is Paul Thorpe. I am Elected Members and Scrutiny Support Manager for Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council.

Cllr Houghton: I am Steve Houghton, Leader of Barnsley Council.

Cllr Ben Adams: I am Ben Adams, Lead Cabinet Member for Communities at Staffordshire County Council.

Helen Riley: Good afternoon. I am Helen Riley, Director of Strategy and Transformation and Assistant Chief Executive at Staffordshire County Council.

Q257 Chair: Thank you very much for coming and spending your time with us this afternoon. Perhaps I may begin with an issue that we will be exploring as part of this inquiry. We looked at it in our previous inquiry into the balance of power between central and local Government. Is it necessary to have greater formality in the relationship between central and local Government; to put it on some sort of formal constitutional basis? Is that necessary to get localism to work in this country? I declare an interest in asking the question, because a week on Thursday I shall be a witness before another Select Committee, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the specific issue of the constitutional relationship between central and local Government. So it would be interesting to have your views on that.

Paul Thorpe: For the benefit of the Committee, the reason Barnsley proposed quite a radical model of formal constitutional settlement was that we thought we had reached a point where we constantly revisited localism and the balance of power among central and local Government, what comes in between and neighbourhoods, and that a degree of certainty ought to be introduced. We revisit this issue every few years when there is a change of Government, and some powers are added and some are taken away. That does not help the overall picture. What tends to happen is that central Government feels that it must constantly intervene in local matters because the media and public pressure do not understand where the various powers and responsibility necessarily lie. That is one argument. It sounds quite formal. Possibly Staffordshire has gone for a less formalised model than us. Having said that, I do not think we are that far apart. Our model is fairly pragmatic in the sense we are saying that this needs to be underpinned by subsidiarity, which is a posh way of saying that at the right spatial level-the neighbourhood, national, local and sub-regional level-you do only those things that are most appropriate. That is a test of effectiveness and efficiency, and is not one underpinned by other radical notions. Therefore, it is doing what works best at what particular tier of Government and enshrining that in a formalised way so that everyone understands where rights, responsibilities and powers lie.

Q258 Chair: You were talking about doing things at the right level; may not that level change over time? It might be that at different times there’s a different point. Therefore, if you put it into a constitutional settlement, does it not tend to rigidify it to the point where perhaps that flexibility of appropriate levels is missing?

Cllr Houghton: Possibly, but that does not mean to say that could not be revisited from time to time either. If you have a constitutional settlement you may need a 10-year review period as part of that. It does not have to stay the same forever. The problem we have, largely with Ministers-the previous Government was guilty of this, and I suspect the new one will not be dissimilar-is that Ministers change and so approaches change; Governments change so approaches change. We are constantly catching up with where Government wants to be and it does not help that process. As Paul said, having some certainty against that background so that we can plan our futures, to be frank, as to where services are and what we want from them would be very helpful.

As Paul said, there is a lot of misunderstanding in the public and that therefore diminishes our role locally because the public do not understand this. I suspect that a lot of local elected members do not understand it either, and, to be frank, more often than not we end up in a mess. Getting something stripped out there does not mean that on a lot of these issues it is simply national or local. A lot of the issues are joint issues for us both and we require co-production and an understanding of that. Local area agreements were the beginning of getting to grips with that. I am not saying that they were right in the form that they took, but they were a start to saying that local and central Government need to understand each other better. Let’s be clear about what you want from us. What do we want and how can you assist that process? Where do we both need to get together and say that on these particular issues there is not a national or local solution; it is about both partners working together. We do not get that; we tend to get, "Well, go away and get on with it," which is fine until a Minister or someone decides it ain’t appropriate. Trying to sort that out helps get better outcomes but it also helps the democratic and political process for the general public, who can see us doing what, why and in whose name. At the moment the public simply cannot respond to that at all.

Q259 Chair: Does Staffordshire want to comment on that?

Cllr Adams: We take a slightly different view. In our experience good partnership working comes from having flexibility and not spending too much time setting out rules of engagement early on. They tend not to stand the test of time. We have been taking a pragmatic approach to this. We want to take ownership of issues in Staffordshire, which means that wherever possible we get on with the job. So for me a lot of the clarity around the Bill is that essentially within the locality it is down to us; it is just what we are looking for, and to go beyond that might not be necessary. Where we possibly have some issues, particularly as we are quite a strong two-tier authority, is the potential for confusion between different tiers at locality level. I think the Localism Bill is taking the right approach in trying to give parish and town councils some autonomy and power. Where that might challenge the responsibility of a district or borough, or indeed one of our own councils, that is liable to introduce some tensions and possibly some expense to the public purse that we would be better off avoiding. I think that at that level some clarity on what the responsibilities are at the place are more important to me than the responsibilities between local and central Government.

Q260 George Hollingbery: I am interested in both those responses, but is not the truth that, ultimately, in a constitutional settlement or co-operation between levels the only thing that really matters here is money? That is what you are; you spend money and nothing more than that ultimately, like all Government, and until there is a constitutional settlement of some sort that allows you guys to tax a lot more for specific local services delivered locally to local people we will really never resolve this tension at all.

Cllr Houghton: There is some truth in what you say. Having freedom and flexibilities around how we raise money and, more particularly, how we spend it would be of significant help. I caution about the local raising of funds because the re-localisation of business rates in its raw form will be catastrophic for many parts of the country. I do not think there can be an unfettered approach to the raising of taxation locally simply because some areas are better placed to do that than others. We have to be clear about the impact of that. I have here a full list of what that would mean. As one leading civil servant said to some chief executives, we will have Westminster Council giving out food hampers every Christmas, and some councils in the North unable to bury the dead. We cannot have a position like that, so whilst relocalisation-in this case we are talking about business rates, effectively-would have some merits it needs to be within a framework of equalisation because the impact of that is so varied across the country, but it would help to give some abilities in those terms.

But we also need to know what the expectations are. Are we prepared to go down the route of what some people describe as a postcode lottery in services, whereby we get different models and qualities of services up and down the country, or is Government looking for more standardisation in some cases, or at least minimum standards to be applied? The way you work that through will determine how we spend our money. Yes, that helps but the point I make is that it is not the only thing.

Cllr Adams: It is about money; but for me, it is more about where the decisions are made about how it is spent. That is the key thing. It is really about policy choices rather than money, and the key thing is that local people drive your policy choices. The opportunity to raise income locally is important, but we are more comfortable with that being done through business endeavour and investment as opposed to tax-raising powers. We are taxing our residents enough. It is more a case of using our initiative to generate income. Where there are issues around business rates in particular, authorities must make sure they deal in partnership with their neighbours. This is a fundamental thing here. If you get an authority that decides to be very aggressive with its business rate policy it will have an enormous impact within the region, so the key is to be joined up there with neighbours.

Q261 James Morris: To come back to the legal status of local Government, one of the central planks of the Localism Bill is the granting of a general power of competence. To what extent do you think that is an academic legal point, or will it actually be meaningful for local Government?

Cllr Adams: We have to see what happens with this. We have a couple of examples at the moment: one where an authority would like to operate a meals-on-wheels service. Within a large county like ours where we have contracts for meals-on-wheels across several districts, for one district to endeavour to do that could upset the balance of the contractual arrangements and the cost of our providing the service to others. Where there are compromises and possibly additional cost to the public purse that is where clarity over responsibility is needed, because we would like to decline the offer if it does not add up to a net benefit for everybody. On the other hand, I have issues with some major highways through Staffordshire. We have offered and would like to take on some of the Highways Agency’s responsibilities for safety but that has been denied us. I think that under a general power of competence there may well be an opportunity for us to tackle that, but those are two quite different ways of using the same power, aren’t they? I think we will hit a lot of somewhat defensive interests as we try to challenge those. Therefore, for us that is a bit of a "look and see".

Cllr Houghton: From our perspective, we need to see what the detail of that means. At the moment we have got the power of economic, social and environmental wellbeing. If it does not take it much further than that, there is probably little added value, so the devil is in the detail.

Q262 James Morris: The power of wellbeing has not been used extensively by local Government. Why do you think that was?

Cllr Houghton: I think it takes us back to the point made earlier by the member adjacent to you. I have never particularly had a huge problem with powers. Very often it has been a lack of resources with which we have struggled to get things done. But with environmental wellbeing or the new powers that may be coming, in the end we still need a good lawyer to interpret that for us and see how far we are able to do it.

Q263 James Morris: Is it not something to do potentially with the timidity of local Government in taking local responsibility and being afraid of what central Government may or may not do rather than it just being a question of resources?

Cllr Houghton: I think it is a question of resources, but we come back to the point that there is uncertainty about what the roles are. We do not have clarity on that, so people become conservative in their approach because they are still not sure about their roles and responsibilities and how far they can go. To give just a general power of wellbeing does not necessarily change that.

Paul Thorpe: It is also worth saying to the Committee that there is another strand to this. It is about powers and finance. It is welcome that local authorities could perhaps explore new revenue streams and funding opportunities and perhaps have tax-levying powers, but another very important strand in any form of government is accountability and transparency. There needs to be proper accountability and transparency, and that comes with a settlement that ensures that the people out there understand who does what and who is held accountable for what. The public do not really understand that now, as Cllr Houghton suggested. In future we will have a much more atomised, diffuse arrangement following the Localism Bill and various other enactments. They will probably understand it even less. That is one of the big problems that we will face.

Q264 James Morris: Cllr Adams made a point about pragmatism. Is it not better that local authorities are given this general power rather than trying to codify the relationship in detail? Does not localism imply that we need flexibility and to be pragmatic, so a general power of competence allows local government essentially to step up to the mark and try to effect change in its locality and that can vary across different areas and can be pragmatic?

Cllr Houghton: It depends on the detail, because there is still an issue about the relationship between local and central Government and what central Government wants out of this. Does the general power of competence that may come out mean we can do what we want with education, adult social care or other services? Clearly, the answer to that is no because Government has its own agenda for that. So it will not solve those particular issues. I come back to the point about clarification of the roles and expectations. So that competence will not change it and that is where we get into difficulty; and very often that is where the change comes certainly between Governments, but we have even had examples in the past where Ministers change and the whole approach changes because of that.

Helen Riley: On the general power of competence compared with the power of wellbeing, it is also important to remember that the latter was introduced at a time that ran almost contra to the way local Government was advised to act, which was very much in a top-down, target-setting regime with a wellbeing power to do things that were a bit fuzzy. I think you are right that there was some timidity and some concern about the ultra vires rule. I would be interesting to see if the competence power picks that up. Importantly for us locally, when we look at working with communities, increasingly local authorities, be it any of the three tiers, do very little alone. To be able to deliver the outcomes and priorities we want locally, we have to work with health, police, fire, the voluntary sector and many other partners. To me, it is interesting to see how that power of competence may or may not apply to partners who are as key locally to delivering the outcomes that we want around health, public health and community safety, because if that applies to only one element of public service we may hit some barriers as we try to move forward.

Cllr Houghton: The classic problem we have faced in partnership working over the years with other public agencies is that they are directly accountable to their Departments, so, as much as we might have some great ideas about what we might do, and the council might have powers to change things, we get primary care trusts or the police or whoever it might be saying, "Well, that’s great, guys, but I have got to do this."

Q265 Simon Danczuk: Is the Government as a whole living up to its rhetoric on localism thus far?

Paul Thorpe: One thing we have suggested to the Committee in our submission is that localism can mean any number of things to any number of people. Very few people are against the notion of localism-who can be?-but what does that mean? I think that the difference between our approach and the Government’s is that we again look at the position of subsidiarity: doing what works best at a given level. I think there is some degree of certainty in that. You know that refuse collection is really a council issue; you know that neighbourhood policing, grass cutting and so on can be neighbourhood or local community issues. You also know that defence and foreign affairs are a national issue, so there is some certainty there. Those things will not really change. That is the difference in approach. It seems to us that in the Localism Bill the Government’s approach is founded on the Big Society model, which is essentially that communities and individuals do it for themselves. That is their default position. Ours is more one of saying, "What’s the right thing to do at the right tier of governance?" rather than devolution through councils and other tiers direct to communities and individuals at that particular level.

Q266 Simon Danczuk: You mentioned refuse collection. Central Government does have a view on that?

Paul Thorpe: Well, it does, doesn’t it? That goes back to Cllr Houghton’s point.

Cllr Houghton: We rest our case.

Paul Thorpe: There is a lack of understanding and certainty amongst the media and public about what are local, neighbourhood and national issues.

Cllr Adams: I think there has been a significant statement. Taking the ring-fencing off the majority of the settlement is an enormous step. That is a real commitment to local decision-making. For too long we have been obliged to spend our money in a certain way, whether it suits the locality or not. There has been a massive step change towards localism. On the other hand, the language and relationship must change. I talked earlier about ownership. I think it is the same with the media. There is a bins issue, so they ask Andrew Neil or somebody else what he thinks of the local bins issue. He will have an opinion, as we all do, about local bin collection outside our house, but what he ought to say is that that is a matter for the local authority and offer them absolute support in their decision. If they get it wrong, somebody will make sure that that changes because at the ballot box there will be a local decision. What we are looking for is the fundamental switch from, "Here you are, guys," to actually, "Really, here you are, guys." I think the statements in the policy documents are absolutely in the right direction. A lot of that is not law yet, is it? We have yet to see that followed with absolute certainty.

Q267 Mark Pawsey: Mr Thorpe, you said that few people would be against the concept of localism. Good councils will be trying to devolve powers, so why do we need a Localism Bill? What will the Localism Bill enable your council to do that you cannot do currently?

Paul Thorpe: We have problems in some areas with the Localism Bill, but I do not think that it is that big an advantage for us as a council; to be honest, it probably causes more problems than it solves. For a long time Barnsley Council has been a keen exponent of partnership working. As far back as 20 to 25 years ago we saw that you could achieve certain things only by working in partnership. So whether that is partnership at local council or neighbourhood level, that is the way Barnsley Council has progressed things. I do not think it is about Barnsley Council or any council grabbing power, freedoms and flexibilities just for itself. I go back to the earlier point: it is about the notion of the right thing at the right level and making sure those things are carried out at that particular tier. It is not about the council grabbing powers and responsibilities necessarily for everything. This is not just us. Some things are better performed by other tiers.

Q268 Mark Pawsey: But if you are already handing out those powers, why do we need this Bill?

Paul Thorpe: That is a good question.

Cllr Houghton: I think Government needs to be careful. Letting 1,000 flowers bloom is great because that becomes an innovative and potentially very localised and responsive way to deal with matters. We need a framework around that so that that activity can be properly audited and tested on behalf of the public. If we do not have that there is a real danger that it will run off and, first, will not be representative of the people that it claims to be; and, secondly, where that money being spent? Just because it is local and diffuse does not mean that it is necessarily better. How are we to audit that and check that we get value for money from it? If the Localism Bill does anything it needs to be able to create that kind of framework. I speak now as an audit commissioner as well as leader of a local council. We need some regulatory framework even around localism. To put all that out there without a framework will end in tears somewhere at some point. Therefore, a balance must be struck here.

We have just won the Big Society Award for what we have done in working with local people on our estates, allowing them to make decisions about the quality of their services and so on, but it was within the framework of accountability; both financial auditing and accountability but also to that wider local community. You really need that. If the Localism Bill does anything, give us what that framework might look like. Is that a job for a local authority to do? So, while it is pushing things down and out into the community it needs to have in mind that regulatory role, or is that for someone else to do?

Q269 Mark Pawsey: Are there some services that you would like to tailor to local needs but the existing legislation does not permit you to do so? Can you give us any examples of that?

Cllr Houghton: One would be how we tackle unemployment and worklessness. The Government’s current position is that it will do that through nationally led training provider contracts. All the evidence suggests to us that the best way to tackle worklessness and long-term unemployment is by localising it, working in local communities and personalising services to the unemployed and using that local intelligence, context and need to shape what is being done. That is not what we have got at the moment. Under the national provider contracts, it is left to the contractors to decide what they want to do. We cannot even obtain from those providers any performance information. We have made freedom of information requests, and they have been refused on the basis of commercial confidentiality. How on earth will we work with those providers and know whether or not it is working if we cannot get the information? The first thing I would say is that sharing information across public agencies is essential. At the moment there are numerous barriers to that. That needs to be done in some cases in a sensitive way, in other cases in a private way, but it needs to be shared. At the moment we are certainly not able to share that information. Equally, when external organisations come to work in the borough, we need, either as part of those contracts on unemployment or other forms of service, requirements for them to work with local authorities and communities. That is not for them to be subservient to us but it means they have to do that. At the moment we do not have that.

Q270 Mark Pawsey: Cllr Adams, you said that the best thing about the Localism Bill was to take off the ring-fencing?

Cllr Adams: Yes.

Mark Pawsey: Can you give us some examples of how that will benefit the residents of Staffordshire?

Cllr Adams: The settlement as a whole is extremely challenging for us, so we have to make absolutely sure we satisfy local need. For example, originally we had a very large spend on careers services and information or guidance through the Connexions service. That was very much top-down directed. It had a very large cost base with monitoring performance and bureaucracy around performance reporting. We know we can do a better job with that for about half the money. We would like to do that and then put what is left into some of the local services. The same goes for the obligation to deliver children’s services in a certain way through certain types of very expensive, iconic and nice-looking buildings that do not necessarily deliver better children’s services in the right places. We think we can make some decisions and use that money differently. For me, it is not so much about devolving the services down. Where our partnership working works well it does that. It is more about breaking some of those connections between Whitehall and the decisions that we should be making on behalf of Staffordshire. It is a bit like the example of the Highways Agency I mentioned earlier. Previously, it was off limits. The new Bill may now provide some options for us to make a difference locally.

Q271 Heidi Alexander: If the Government lives up to its rhetoric on localism and local authorities receive increased powers, to what extent do you think those powers will be devolved down to local communities in your areas?

Cllr Adams: It will depend very much on the appetite of those communities or community representatives. We have something in the order of 300 parish and town councils in Staffordshire. Some are full-on ambitious and waiting to make choices and investments themselves, while others take very much the traditional local representation view. I do not think it is for us to poke or prod organisations to do things that do not suit them or their communities, so it will evolve very differently. But I would expect nationally to see a real tapestry of delivery. I am not worried about the postcode lottery. I want to see more quality in more places, less average across the whole country, and I think this is a way of stimulating that. The big philosophical thing around this with communities and devolving power down is that decisions will be made generally by smaller groups at a lower level. If they fail they will do so in a smaller way. At the minute if we have a failure of national delivery it affects everybody, so to me there is some comfort in the mixture and diversity of delivery.

Q272 Heidi Alexander: You said it depended on the appetite of local communities.

Cllr Adams: Yes.

Heidi Alexander: In your experience what determines that appetite?

Cllr Adams: At the moment far too much of it is negatively determined, so people will get very excited about a planning application that they do not want to see proceed or a new road they do not like, and they will be active for two or three years about something that affects them personally. I think we have to stimulate communities to take a wider view and consider their neighbours and the future of the whole area. The key to that is to get them involved in local democracy. If the Localism Bill does nothing else, it will take power and deliver it back to local democratically elected people. When that happens, communities will want to get involved again. The idea at the moment that they go to a planning committee and something is thrown out by that committee and then turned around by a national inspector makes nonsense of local democracy. For me, it is a massive step: we pass the power back, and let things go right or wrong, because people will engage at every level.

Cllr Houghton: Do not get carried away with all that. All the evidence suggests that local communities do not want all these powers thrown down to them. The vast majority want decent public services and access to decision-making when it directly affects where they are and, if it goes wrong, someone to complain to and it being sorted out. My experience is that they do not want a committee to work out how long the grass should be when it is being cut and so on. I have to say that over a number of years there was a lot of nonsense-the previous Government got hung up on this-about how much needed to be pushed down into these areas, because the demand is not there. That is the truth.

However, we get demand where people want to try to shape their place, want to know how they can engage with public agencies to make it a better place and so on, but there is a lot of nonsense talked about some of this stuff, for example that a million people out there just cannot wait to get in and take over. That is not true. We will get into all sorts of difficulties if we start to throw this out and find out that it will not be done. It is the responsibility of the council to listen to its community. I am interested in looking at ways of how we do that and then the decisions that we have to take are appropriately shaped in light of that. Do not get carried away with the idea of millions of people. Of those who are keen to do things, some are very good and do it for the right reasons, but, to be frank, there are other people out there doing it for other reasons, and we also get into issues of accountability in some of this. My advice would be to tread carefully.

Q273 George Hollingbery: I have to say that the issue of accountability and where that responsibility lies is the one that vexes me most. However, I disagree with you, Cllr Houghton, about appetite. I think it depends on where you come from and what your area is like. Certainly, in my area there is an enormous appetite for control of some services and some issues like planning where there is absolutely no doubt there will be very widespread community involvement. It is interesting that the Bill itself prescribes real democratic accountability in these issues only in areas like planning where there seems to be an appetite. I think we have heard from you about your worries about accountability. Perhaps I may ask Staffordshire about accountability and governance, particularly where services are devolved to third parties and where perhaps you have commissioned something out; or maybe under the right to challenge, people have drawn services out from a council. How do we create accountability, particularly with big public funds?

Cllr Adams: To me the key is the legitimacy of the decision. I share Cllr Houghton’s concerns about accountability. If groups without a mandate seek to direct local policy, they need to be legitimate decisions through democratically elected representatives. I am keen to see more different, new ambitious people who seek to become democratically elected. I do not believe that we can give neighbourhood forums and communities of an ad hoc nature power to make decisions that affect a lot of other people because there are no controls over that through the ballot box or formal political means.

Q274 George Hollingbery: But there will be control under the Bill. It Bill requires a referendum on any plan that comes forward.

Cllr Adams: It does. For me, the referendum is the problem. You elect somebody for four years to make decisions and then can potentially second-guess them every month with a 5% referendum. We have just had a referendum under the 1970s Local Government Acts, with the support of six town councillors. They got less than 16% of the vote on the referendum and it cost them £14,000. That is not a good way to spend public money and it will not get public support when that is made clear. There are dangers in that. We need detail. It is very clear around planning, as you say. Ultimately, the planning committees make the decisions but they are being led and informed by community development focus groups etc. Outside planning it is not so clear, and there are dangers there.

Paul Thorpe: The other question to ask is whether the Localism Bill is consistently localist in what it is doing and in its message, and, indeed whether that applies to some of central Government’s other legislation, for example the requirement to hold referenda. Are referenda in themselves particularly localist if, as Cllr Adams says, the council has been elected on a particular manifesto and mandate? There are inconsistencies in that and in other legislation, for example the imposition of new models of governance such as mayors, police commissioners and so on. To what extent is this programme consistently localist? There are questions to be asked about that.

Q275 Bob Blackman: We heard earlier about the potential for postcode lottery in the provision of services. Equally, one of the key challenges in the whole approach in the localism agenda is the power to allow authorities that do not succeed to fail. I want to explore with both Staffordshire and Barnsley when they think it is right for central Government to intervene. At what point does central Government intervene after the Localism Bill becomes law?

Cllr Adams: I think central Government should set the parameters.

Bob Blackman: To be clear, I think Cllr Houghton referred to minimum standards, for example.

Cllr Adams: Yes; minimum standards and expectations. We need to understand when somebody has failed for a start, and whether central Government or somebody else then comes in to fix the problem. I think there is a role for the LGA there. If councils are failing it is the body of councils that should come in to try to fix them, and maybe it needs to be prepared to do that. It might be more difficult if we talk about some of the partnerships to which Helen alluded earlier in conjunction with other public services that are driven directly from Whitehall. If there is a failure in a local health service that is not necessarily in the control of the local authority other parties will have to get involved as well. Clearly, it is not in the public interest that, if something fails there is not a national response, but I think we have to be prepared for it and have a plan for the failure. It is not satisfactory that the Secretary of State or a Minister takes responsibility and makes short-term decisions on it. There must be some formal group.

Cllr Houghton: The problem is that we do not know because we have not had the discussion. From my perspective, in understanding what works at different levels, in a sense the "failure" bit then comes in on a similar basis. The argument on dustbins is interesting, isn’t it? Councils had experienced difficulties because of the weather and bin collections got behind and in a few places, not all, some problems had developed. The councils did not see that as failure; they saw it as the result of all the problems we had had and we are working to put that right. The public in those areas saw that as failure and presumably contacted their MPs who got on to the Minister who then wrote a letter to every leader of a council in the country to say, "Get your finger out; you’re not performing well enough." It is that lack of understanding that bedevils us. We get to a point where we know what failure is in the extreme; it is the child dying in Haringey. We all recognise that and understand it, but when we get to lesser areas, we do not know just how far that can go and it needs a discussion and debate.

Q276 Bob Blackman: To be clear, in terms of service failure, clearly a catastrophic failure in a children’s services department is different. I think we would all recognise that. But in terms of a failure, services are not being provided by a local authority, say Barnsley; suddenly, you have fallen down on something and compared with Staffordshire, your services are far worse judged against these standards. Do you think the Government should intervene?

Cllr Houghton: I come back to where I began. We need to have an understanding of the expectations on both sides. Once we have that we will know whether the Government should intervene. Unless we have the discussion and debate, we will get different interpretations from different Governments and Ministers. Therein lies the problem. That then prevents us from being innovative and creative in the way we would like to be. There is always the fear that we go too far and we are not sure what "too far" is.

Paul Thorpe: It is also worth adding that the way performance management is moving now with the Government’s agenda means it is more about self-performance management, so the local government sector as a whole must take responsibility and effectively manage performance across the piece. Therefore, each local authority has a responsibility to others as well to help that happen and drive up performance and understanding in the sector. That also requires local councils to be absolutely frank and candid about what they recognise as failure.

Cllr Houghton: In the end, if we are not to have something between central and local Government and it is left to us, the Local Government Association has to get to grips with this and give councils a framework and clue as to how far they can push this and what service failure may or may not look like from the sector’s perspective, but at least we need something around that. That is not to drive every last detail of it, but to give us a clue as to where people are or are not likely to intervene.

Helen Riley: In the past it was very easy to say whether x service at Staffordshire was better or worse than Barnsley’s service because we were working to a national framework. Clearly, the Government and the localism agenda are pushing local priorities and the services that deliver them will have different importance in each area. Therefore, it may not matter that a particular service is worse in Barnsley than it is in Staffordshire because it may not be delivering a real priority and outcome for Barnsley, whereas that may be so for Staffordshire. It is really difficult if you start to escalate that to national level and take a view across all local authority areas about whether there should be a benchmark for the performance of a particular service because they will be delivered differently according to different levels of importance, depending on the local priority and local circumstances.

Q277 Mike Freer: You touched on decentralisation almost as a charter for the sharp-elbowed or those with loud voices. You did not put it quite like that but that is what you were getting at. How do you protect those who do not have a voice? In my experience of local government, few people come banging on the door saying they want a halfway house, a centre for learning difficulties or a people referral unit. Usually, it is the reverse. How do you protect those silent communities that do not have a voice if localism is to be writ large?

Cllr Houghton: I think you have to protect the role of the elected member at local level. Under the previous Government-there is a danger we’ll go as well-it felt that there was not a role for a local member: "We’ve put it all out there, let’s see what we get back." I value representative democracy; it is incredibly important. For all its faults-I am sure we can debate them ad nauseam-in the end it is the one thing where people can exercise choice and some accountability for what has been done. If you are to have localism, build it around the role of the elected member. That does not mean the elected member is the be all and end all of it and has complete control, but it puts the elected member at the heart of that. The route of the silent majority that you talk about is just that, and we have to protect it.

Q278 Mike Freer: To take that one step further, I am not sure that the local member is best placed, because a local member can be voted out if the local community says, "You supported that halfway house and we didn’t want it," unless you are saying that the collective council can say, "We hear what you say but for the greater good of the community we will have to put it here"?

Cllr Houghton: Yes. I meant the collective council. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I emphasise that. Planning is one area that always worries you because when people demand things through the planning system they usually say, "We’re not having that." Members are put under enormous pressure, which is why the collective council or the planning committee does matter so that difficult decisions can be taken.

Chair: Cllr Adams, do you want to respond?

Cllr Adams: I can only agree with every word of that.

Chair: That is a very good point on which to end your evidence. I thank all of you for coming and giving us such interesting information this afternoon.

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Steve Evans, Director of Community Services, and Robert Walsh, Head of Safer and Stronger Communities, South Gloucestershire Council; Cllr David Milsted, Leader of the Opposition (Liberal Democrat), North Dorset District Council, and Mark Hebditch, Chair, Community Partnerships Executive North Dorset (CPEND), gave evidence.

Q279 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to our session this afternoon. For the sake of our records, could you introduce yourselves? Say who you are and the organisations you represent.

Robert Walsh: I am Robert Walsh, Head of Safer and Stronger Communities at South Gloucestershire Council.

Steve Evans: I am Steve Evans, Director of Community Services, South Gloucestershire Council.

Cllr Milsted: I am David Milsted, Leader of the second largest group on North Dorset District Council.

Mark Hebditch: I am Mark Hebditch, Chairman of the Community Partnerships Executive North Dorset.

Q280 Chair: That is quite a long title. I thank all of you very much for coming. If you happen to agree with something that has been said you do not have to repeat your agreement. Just a nod in the right direction will be sufficient to say "I agree."
To begin with, we have in front of us a Localism Bill. Do we really need a central Government initiative to get localism working at local level, or are you quite capable of getting on with the job anyway?

Cllr Milsted: I think we rather have been getting on with the job, and our written submission, which I am sure you have seen, shows that over the last four years we have been doing a lot of what is now called localism. I listened to the previous questions. One of the questions you asked was, "Will the Localism Bill make it any easier for your council to do this kind of thing in the future?" I think some aspects of it might have made it a bit easier for us four years ago when we started doing what we have done, particularly the general power of competence. That would have been helpful. But in our particular case, without denigrating the Bill in any way, I do not think it will make an awful lot of difference.

Steve Evans: It works on several levels for me. It indicates the view of Government in a particular direction. I think the fact that localism is central to the platform is a very helpful signal to communities and local government. The execution of that is the question. How well will the legislation match the needs of local government, central Government and communities themselves? Therefore, the test is how the elements within any Bill, White Paper or whatever blend with, for example, the Sustainable Communities Act, Healthy Lives, Healthy People and all the other aspects of government that work at a community level.

Q281 Chair: So, if the Secretary of State had called you in before he published the Bill and said, "I understand you want to get on with localism down at council level. You are doing good things already but we can help you do even better, can’t we, so what more powers would you like to be devolved to you?" what would you have said to him? What would you have proposed could have been done in addition that is not in the Bill and would help?

Cllr Milsted: Probably any councillor in the country would say the bottom line is, "Please, sir, what we should like is the power to set local tax at the level we think fit and let the electorate decide whether or not they think that is a good idea by kicking us out if they do not like it."

Mark Hebditch: I endorse that. The direction of travel in the Bill seems absolutely fine, but we talked about this on the way down and, quite honestly, there is not very much in it that would be of direct help in the way we have evolved over the past few years. But there are issues in terms of devolving responsibilities to communities and community groups that are not councils and having a level playing field with councils. Having just been involved in taking over the leisure services of our town, we found that, for example, VAT was levied on a charity, which we are, in a completely different way from on a local authority, and similarly with business rates. There are ways in which local authorities have an advantage over community groups but the direction of travel is to devolve more to community groups and that makes it very difficult for those community groups to take on that responsibility. One of the reasons, obviously, is that ultimately the appetite may not be there to take on more and more.

Cllr Milsted: I certainly endorse that. When it comes to business rates, that is a huge advantage of a local facility being run by, let’s say, a charitable trust or community interest company in that they can be granted 100% exemption from non-domestic rates, which I have to say is an enormous burden on local authorities, as many of you will know. I think many of us regard it as quite outrageous that councils have to pay business rates on schools, for example, but that is probably another issue. The VAT question was almost a killer on one large local project because the goal posts had been moved in the three years since the previous large local project had been done which benefited then from VAT exemption. It was assumed that those rules would still apply when we did the leisure centre in Gillingham and, behold, they did not and the district council had to find a substantial amount of extra money to help out the charitable trust with that.

Steve Evans: Resources will always be one of the key issues. How you raise and pool resources will always be one of the questions. It is interesting that some of the work we have been carrying out around health has over a period of time drawn the health service and ourselves together. We have pooled resources on particular projects but we have never felt we have had enough resource going in because of the different pressures on the different organisations, from Government down. I think it was mentioned earlier that the accountability lines have been up not necessarily to the local community. Clearly, one of the issues for us has been being able to pool those resources with a legal entity that can deliver some of the priorities at a very local level and retain that accountability through the lead strategic organisations but help local communities take control of their own destiny and tackle some of their own issues. One of the fundamental issues for us is to get legal entities in place to accept resources but also the strategic agencies to accept that this is a priority for them so they can pool their resources in a common budget to achieve certain outcomes.

Q282 Mark Pawsey: We heard from earlier witnesses-and you have alluded to the fact-that localism is a good thing and you have been doing it wherever you can so far. How do you measure that what you have done has been successful? If you are given the additional powers in the Bill that will provide even more localism how will we measure whether or not that has been successful? What are the criteria?

Cllr Milsted: That is a good question. Sometimes you have to measure it negatively. If the number of people grumbling about a service diminishes to almost nothing, one likes to assume that means it has been a success. One measure is that over the past four years my district council has reduced its budget by more than 25% plus. That is about three million quid. It was a small budget to begin with; it is a tiny one now. The cost of running those devolved services is much less than the £3 million we have saved. What had been a number of clapped-out, scruffy and really rather nasty facilities-a collection of public loos that you really would not want to use and a leisure centre that was completely collapsed and exhausted-are now lovely and are very popular and well used. That is a measure of success.

I think we would also measure success in terms of the perceptible community involvement and pride of place and belonging that it has created in many cases and continues to, although it was a hard road. It began with the council being capped in 2005, which concentrated minds politically quite wonderfully, because after that, given the realities of the situation, any sort of political fighting began to look a bit like two bald men fighting over a comb. Therefore, it was born of necessity, if you like. We had four leisure centres and three swimming pools that were going to close unless we could find some other way of doing it. I have to say that it began with a deal of hostility from town and parish councils. At our first meeting with them the biggest applause of the night came when a gentleman said he did not see why they should be using their parish money to bail out the "bloody" district council. We started from that point.

Mark Hebditch: Success criteria can be very elusive. For me, the bottom line is to have good intelligence from communities about the needs and aspirations of those communities. That is well evidenced through engagement with the community through various strategies of consultation. Once you have that, you have a ready-made set of criteria by which you will judge it. If you do what we did-provide the leisure services that the community has clearly said it wants-then you can tick that box and you have been successful. I suspect that there has previously been a bit of tension expressed by the representative as against participative democracy elements; the community action groups as against those councillors. Again, I think those tensions can be absolutely relieved if you start with a robust town, parish, district plan that is based on real exploration of what people in all the communities want and need. Once you sing from the same hymn sheet and have the same basic document to which we have all subscribed, those tensions disappear and you are going in the right direction.

Q283 Mark Pawsey: And is the measure of success rewarded through the ballot box, or is it in a referendum or when local elections come round, or would you want some form of survey or some other form of measure to support what you are doing?

Cllr Milsted: I do not know, speaking for the councils, that we really require any sort of recognition. I do not think we will get our reward through the ballot box particularly. If everything had closed and gone belly up then we would probably be kicked out. I do not think you get particularly rewarded for doing this sort of thing. It sounds terribly Pollyanna-ish, but your reward is that you know what you have done and you can see the benefits of it. Referendum is a concept with which we have a problem particularly in terms of the Localism Bill, and I would like to mention that. The Localism Bill talks about village and town design statements, parish plans and so on being implemented if they have been approved in a referendum. We now have several town and village design statements and town and parish plans that are being adopted as supplementary planning policy in our district-wide plan. We have not required referenda for those.

Q284 George Hollingbery: Forgive me for interrupting. I hear a story of a failing district council that you very ably grabbed by the scruff and pulled back up again. I do not think that what you have done is localism at all; you have done what a good local district council does, which is listen to people in its parishes and towns and delivers what it ought to deliver. The whole point of this Bill is to deliver genuine devolution of Government power down to local authorities. With respect, I spent a long time on a district council so I genuinely know what I am talking about. There is so little, frankly, that a district council genuinely delivers that is mandated by Government, as it is in a unitary authority, that it will not impact on you greatly. Is what you are doing localism?

Cllr Milsted: Yes, it is; it is the devolution of power of ownership of services down to the most local practicable level, which is hard-wired into the DNA of some of us politically anyway. It happens that we did it because our backs were against the wall because of capping and so on. Looking back, I think we would all say that even if we were to be awash with money, we would still have done it now that we know the good that it has done.

Q285 George Hollingbery: But your town and parish plans hold no statutory weight, ultimately.

Cllr Milsted: Yes, they do. I am sorry. They are being adopted as supplementary planning policy, so, yes, they do have statutory power. To hold a referendum would simply cost a lot of money that we would then not be able to spend on doing real, good things.

Mark Hebditch: In the development of a new local development framework in the core strategy the results of all town and parish consultations have been incorporated. When I read the core strategy I can read words that I know I have written and spoken and this is part of the district council policy. There is no question about it. There is a real influence being brought to bear by people in communities on the way basic core policies, of which planning is one, are formulated to the point where the notion spelt out in the Localism Bill of having 50% support of voters through a referendum to initiate a neighbourhood plan seems totally redundant, indeed subversive of good practice at local level.

Q286 Chair: Gloucestershire has been very quiet.

Steve Evans: Perhaps I may change tack and use a slightly different example of which we have great experience. Like a lot of authorities, a few years ago we made a definite decision to move and focus some of the issues on our priority neighbourhoods: those areas that scored worst in the indices of multiple deprivation. We selected a number of areas based on them being in the bottom 20% nationally, which in South Gloucestershire is quite rare because we are fairly well off, but when you look at the difference in quality of life and life expectancy, illness and so forth, between our poorer communities and those best off it is significant.

So with the support of the council we established a priority neighbourhoods programme and made a bit of a mistake early on, in that we went out and got to the stage where we asked each of the people in all groups in those areas-we also managed to access difficult to reach groups-what they wanted. The failure we made at that time was not to put that in context and explain to them where they stood in relation to health, crime and antisocial behaviour and to contextualise that in their communities. We learnt that lesson with our partners: the police, health service and voluntary sector. We have now revisited that and are contextualising those. We find that, in trying to develop a local platform for local people to take ownership of those issues and tackle those long-term underlying and most expensive aspects of public expenditure in our areas, they want to understand that and get the message and take some control of what they do. To me, the most important lesson for us is to contextualise some of the issues as strategic agencies and willingly to say collectively to those particular neighbourhoods, "We want to help you tackle those issues locally but we recognise that you need to be a major driver in those areas and a party to it," and working through with those communities the mechanisms that will deliver that.

We are on the next phase of introducing that and starting that programme in terms of them taking a lead and shaping their own action plans, but very clearly we are saying to them, if you like, "The only rule of this game is that you must focus on the multiple deprivation indices to be a priority neighbourhood delivery group." They have accepted that. We are now in the phase where we are looking at an action plan, not just the agencies in a strategic way but each individual community tackling the specific issues that those individual communities have. We have six priority neighbourhoods and all have a different focus, recognising their make-up and specific issues. We think that is the way forward for us.

That is in addition to work we have been doing on the former PACT arrangements. We call them safer and stronger community groups because that resonates more easily with people. Over the past 18 months to two years we find that we have made a significant impact on those who believe they are engaged in influencing decision making.

Q287 Mark Pawsey: How are you measuring that? You say you have found that. How do you know that it is succeeding?

Steve Evans: Obviously, there was the Place Survey in previous years that asked those specific questions. The Place Survey was cancelled in the last year. We as a council with our partners decided that we would ask those questions again in a public survey. We had 1,200 responses, which is statistically significant in delivering that information. But we have seen a vast improvement in people saying they feel the area is safer and the agencies are working closer together; that the police and council are communicating better with communities; and the fear of crime is dropping. It is not all perfect but we have made significant inroads in those areas.

Chair: We have to press on a little because there are several issues we need to get to.

Q288 Mike Freer: I apologise for missing the start of your evidence, but what I picked up is that to you localism is consultation in that South Gloucestershire is involved in consulting their areas of multiple deprivation but they are not in direct control of the services. You have asked them but they appear to be consultees rather than managers of the actual delivery. North Dorset appears to be using existing structures of town and parish councils. What I do not have any evidence of is where your communities have either taken direct control, not through existing structures but through new ones, and they have created new organisations to take control of council services; or where they have said, "We want you to de-prioritise money from this budget and move it into that budget." So, what I am getting is that you have consulted and allowed them to spend the money that is there rather than divert it or take direct control.

Robert Walsh: If I could refer you to figure 5 in our submission that sits under paragraph 48, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to explain better what this is about. You will see that within our model of community lead groups, which are the ones Steve has described, there are different ways that role can be played out. One of the important dimensions here is that that must be played out bearing in mind the maturity and strength of local community groups. So, a reference group, which is the furthest left on that continuum, is very much as you have described; it is a group that would be consulted and whose views would be taken into account. As you move further across that continuum the partner groups and then the leading groups have more power and influence, so within a priority neighbourhood where you have a leading group it will be the community lead group that starts to define what the priorities are and starts to push the public sector to move resources and effort around to deliver those local priorities. There will be only one community lead group within each priority neighbourhood, but, to come full circle, the ability of a community lead group to take on that role must reflect their current position. We will be supporting them and helping them to take a lead, but having discussed this model and drawn it up in conjunction with community groups, we have had to be very clear not to come along and say there is one model that fits all.

Q289 Mike Freer: How many leading groups do you have?

Robert Walsh: At the moment we have signed up five community lead groups. As we identified in our submission, we have one neighbourhood, Kingswood, that is not the area that shows up on the indices of multiple deprivation as having greatest need but locally there is not the social infrastructure to have a group that could lead in this way. So in Kingswood we will be looking to work with the community groups to develop that infrastructure; in other areas we have something already in place and that ranges from town and parish councils through to a regeneration partnership.

Mark Hebditch: In North Dorset the way the existing structure was used was through a process of very rapid evolution from one model, where community partnerships were essentially talking shops and just listening to what people say, to taking on local services. Part of the North Dorset investment in the community planning strategy is to make sure that each of the towns and its cluster of villages has a community resource worker who has the capacity to help local groups establish themselves, give advice on governance, funding streams and so on, so that they can confidently take on new responsibilities, for example a local volunteer car group. My view as chairman of a local partnership is that that is fine but there are obvious synergies between different communities and opportunities for efficiencies and economies of scale by co-operating with other towns and villages in the area. That is why we have a community partnership executive in North Dorset, which again is in the process of evolution. In a fairly short time it will hopefully have established itself not just as a partnership networking organisation but a community enterprise organisation, probably as a charitably incorporated organisation, which will have a more entrepreneurial mindset to establish itself as capable of taking on more challenges in future. Therefore, it is not just a matter of everything happening that has been slotted into preexisting structures because that is not true. The structure itself is evolving very rapidly and has the capacity to evolve further to take on new challenges under the localism agenda.

Cllr Milsted: Our council’s support for the Dorset Community Action, which in turn supports the community support workers, ties in with our whole community planning model, which is not based just on town and parish councils, with respect; it is created by the four town-based community partnerships who come together to form CPEND, of which Mark is Chairman. They are all different. We have not prescribed how they should grow. They have all grown as they needed to grow because the four towns are different. They are not quite the same animal one to the other but they are all performing very well and achieving good things. In part, that was why we were able a few years ago to win £3.7 million in liveability money. I think we were the only district council to get liveability funding. It was very much to do with that. Somebody asked what sort of recognition we wanted. I was trying to find a way of saying this, but we won an award last year; we won the Local Government Chronicle Health Service Journal Best Communities 2010 Award for that. There you are; I have got it in now.

Q290 Chair: Mr Evans, do you want to add anything briefly, because we need to make a bit of progress?

Steve Evans: In a number of areas we have transferred assets to clubs and organisations where they have shown a willingness to do that and run facilities. We very much support town centre partnerships. Our small town centres have suffered under the economy; they live cheek by jowl almost, so we have helped to enable those things and supported and strengthened them. There is not a single position that any of these organisations take. Some of them start very weak; they lack confidence. Particularly in our priority neighbourhoods there is lack of confidence and self-belief. Part of our job is to build that confidence, trust, self-belief and skills so communities eventually come out of being priority neighbourhoods. Our job is to see that in the next 10 years those six priority neighbourhoods are no longer priority neighbourhoods by overcoming the multiple deprivation indices, but we certainly do transfer assets. We have somebody who helps organisations to set up a constitution, apply for charity status and enables groups to take on and become self-resourcing. That has been very successful with community centres.

Chair: We must now try to focus. We will be constrained for time. There are still one or two issues we want to get to.

Q291 Stephen Gilbert: I think you have given us some useful examples of localism in practice in your different patches. Maybe we can take a step back. What is the mindset or attitudinal change within local authorities that must be made for this kind of localist approach to flourish?

Mark Hebditch: That change in mindset and culture is absolutely critical to the development of successful localism. There is no question about it. What has happened in North Dorset is that over a matter of five or six years the perception of officers and members of their role has been substantially changed. Obviously, the district council has its statutory responsibilities but as far as discretionary services are concerned they have now all been devolved to communities so that their role becomes that of enabler and supporter. I think that role can be developed even further. They are shrinking in a sense in terms of their own service delivery but growing in terms of the practical support they can give HR, legal, financial-whatsoever-to communities. It is to their great credit as an authority-I am outside the authority-that they have changed that mindset and embraced it positively with huge enthusiasm, and that in itself infects the attitudes of people in the community who feel they can do things because they believe we can do things. The bottom line to success at delivering services at grass roots level is that there is trust on the part of the people devolving those services to those at local community level who very often in the past have been totally marginalised. Who are these people, especially if they are non-elected and not part of statutory authorities?

Q292 Chair: I think we really need one response from each.

Cllr Milsted: Succinctly, it is the shift away from seeing ourselves as providers and dispensers to being enablers and supporters. In a nutshell that is it.

Steve Evans: I offer somebody else’s quote that I would have liked to make: experts on tap, not on top.

Q293 Chair: Very briefly, if a community says, "Sorry, we don’t want to run this," does it mean it does not get a service?

Cllr Milsted: That is right. It is their choice to decide what their communities need and want.

Q294 Chair: What if it cannot run a service?

Cllr Milsted: If they tell us they do not want it and they can prove that they really know what they are talking about, it is not for us to say, "I’m sorry but you’re wrong; you have to have it." I have sat in on a parish council meeting where somebody said, "We’re not going to help fund this leisure centre because nobody in this village uses it," and I happened to know that 64 people in the village were members of it. Well, that is different, but if genuinely the community does not want to take something on because it feels it does not want it badly enough, fair enough.

Steve Evans: The matter will be put to the test over the next few years. Clearly, there will be a local democratic decision-making process at local authority level about what the priorities are and the available resources and then the community will have to consider what it wants to do in response to that prioritisation. Clearly, it will be a dialogue that will evolve. I do not think I can give you a simple, straightforward yes or no.

Q295 Bob Blackman: If the ministerial team were sitting here they would tell us that this is an enabling Bill. It would then be for you as individuals at local level to make the decisions. How prescriptive do you think they should be about how you should devolve to local people? Perhaps I may start with South Gloucestershire.

Steve Evans: It is a very difficult question. I think the earlier commentary we had about being clear about the arrangements between central and local government would be very helpful. One of the problems I have faced over the last few years is the degree to which we were told how to run things on the ground, for example that for the PACT groups you must have three priorities at the end of the meeting. Communities do not necessarily work that way. We have also found that tackling antisocial behaviour, which was the focus early on, moved on to become, "Now, what can we do in our community, because we overcame the sharp-end crisis?" I do not think you can be prescriptive. Government needs absolutely to be enabling in this. There will be all sorts of legislation; it will not just be in the Localism Bill. There are some very good opportunities under the Sustainable Communities Act and also from devolving or transferring health protection and health improvement to local authorities, but I also think there will be challenges.

Q296 Bob Blackman: If I may cut across you, suppose your council-I accept that you are officers and serving councillors-says, "Fine. We will not devolve any power at all; we will just keep it to ourselves and we’re not interested in any of this. We’ll just carry on as we are." Do you think Government should intervene on that basis?

Steve Evans: I do not because I think that local members would then very quickly get the message from local communities that that was not what was expected of them. Our communities are well able to challenge those situations, particularly if there is a national context which says, "This is what we believe is right across the country, but it’s up to you to challenge your local authority in terms of how it then delivers that." I think it is that clarity of the national context and the subsidiarity that you would have in place that could be challenged. Knowing our communities, they are not backward in coming forward.

Mark Hebditch: There are elements of good practice that need to be disseminated and shared, and it is certainly the role of Government to identify what is working and to give it support, praise and publicity. I referred earlier to planning, which is really important. I feel quite strongly, not as a town or parish councillor, that no town, parish or district council should be allowed to spend money without well-evidenced plans based on proper engagement with communities. That would get round the issue of councils that just drift on and do not do anything. What right do they have to exercise their statutory rights and powers without properly evidenced understanding of what their communities actually want? Although I believe in representative democracy quite passionately, I do not believe that all councillors bring that intelligence to the council chamber in an adequate way.

Cllr Milsted: As I understand it, if the local authority sat there and said, "We’re not going to do any of this," would the Bill not also give local people the right to challenge that and overturn that in any case?

Q297 Bob Blackman: But is it not true to say that frequently most people protest about a decision that has been taken by a local council as opposed to demanding that a service is provided?

Mark Hebditch: Yes, probably.

Cllr Milsted: Or they protest against a threat to close something.

Mark Hebditch: Which is why those protests need to be pre-empted by having robust plans in the first place to which people subscribe, which are public and transparent and the community endorse.

Q298 Bob Blackman: Do you believe that central Government have the right to intervene in that process, or not?

Mark Hebditch: I think they have a right to say what is good practice. I am not sure whether intervention would be appropriate.

Cllr Milsted: I do not think they should prescribe or proscribe but they should, as Mark said, encourage. Having enabled, they should encourage.

Q299 Simon Danczuk: You have talked about community activists and volunteers coming forward to develop, organise and deliver services. I can think of the advantages involved in those people doing that. What are some of the potential disadvantages and risks involved in volunteers taking up more services?

Cllr Milsted: That nearly all of them in the case of some quite major projects that are now being run by volunteers are quite comfortably past retirement age and not getting any younger. As with any volunteering community, if you volunteer for one thing you probably end up volunteering for three or four and tend to bump into the same people again and again. There are not that many of the really active ones who are doing stuff. It takes only two or three people to fall off the twig and possibly a major local service is then in some peril. That is the biggest risk and what keeps me awake at night.

Q300 Simon Danczuk: That is a good point. Do you think that they then shape that service to meet the needs and requirements of their demographic group as opposed to others?

Cllr Milsted: No, I do not think so.

Mark Hebditch: I do not believe that is true. There is a real danger in relying naively on the endless willingness of volunteers to come forward for all sorts of reasons. One of them is that volunteers need support, training, TLC and management and that can be a full-time job, which has to be done by other volunteers. I also have some problems about volunteering in terms of, for example, taking over library services. If a service is really under threat and the only way to preserve it is to take on volunteers instead of paid employees, fine. However, you probably lose some skills in doing that. Possibly you are also in danger of being at the thin end of a wedge where increasingly various types of service are de-professionalised, of which the library service is certainly one. It has already happened even with paid employees, never mind volunteers taking over. The youth service is another. I believe you need proper, professionally trained people who are responsible for these services; otherwise, there is a real danger that the service itself will deteriorate to the point where it becomes unviable.

Cllr Milsted: I am also a county councillor. Not one of our 34 libraries is managed by a trained librarian, and that is an enormous change from 30 years ago when my late wife was a librarian. In her day all branches had to have qualified librarians. I agree with Mark on that, which is no disrespect to the people who are trying to manage our libraries. As to the point about more elderly volunteers, I do not think they run it in their own image. When it is something like a leisure centre with a swimming pool I do not see that as a danger, but we have made the point in our written submission that it needs, as we put it, continual nurturing to find new volunteers and sustain the ones we already have. The job is never done. There is never a point where the district council should say, "Well, I’ve ticked that box and can walk away from that one now." It needs continuous watering and nurturing.

Robert Walsh: I certainly endorse that statement. As Steve mentioned earlier, in South Gloucestershire we have a programme of community asset transfer. One of the things that has made that successful in some locations has been the fact that not all volunteers are equal and you need to ensure that if you have a community trust that is being set up you work with it so they understand the skills and abilities they will need, and in our case by running through that we are trying to prevent problems of groups failing down the line and the assets having to come back into council operation or ownership. I think it is a process of delicate nurturing and negotiation.

Steve Evans: Perhaps I may add to that by saying that resilience and a stable environment for those sorts of organisations to flourish is also quite critical. In the past we have had all aspects of life. We had resources parachuted in for three years and then it went again. That works sometimes on certain projects, but often by the time you have the project up and running and the people together motivated and the energy in the system it has gone again. One of the messages we are getting back is, "This is not going to be a three-year wonder, is it?" One of the key messages we have all the time is that nurturing this as a long-term serious cornerstone of our work is critical.

Q301 Heidi Alexander: As a final question, we have talked about the involvement of individuals and communities in different projects in different service delivery areas. What are your thoughts on the propensity and ability of those individuals and communities to get involved on a sustained basis over the whole range of services that local authorities provide? Do you think there are particular services that are more appropriate for that type of involvement?

Mark Hebditch: The truth is that quite a lot of the services that have devolved to local communities have done so because the parent authority, usually the district, has been unable to continue to fund it and support it out of its own budget. So it has been force majeure; picking up the detritus of a collapse. However, I think that if you have strong community partnerships and good working with local authorities, and town and parish councils also have their capacity built, that appetite could increase, but it is incremental; it is not a big bang. It takes time to build that level of capacity and confidence in the community to take on bigger challenges. Our view is that probably the halfway house is to try to bring services closer to communities and residents by people coming out of their bunkers, silos, the PCT and children’s services and working together physically as much as possible in localities. When that happens and there is engagement in the community in something that is working, the appetite for the community to say, "We can do that," could increase over time. There is no question but that you get the biggest bang for buck at the most local level, but you have to put in place some sort of infrastructure before you can maximise the value added that you get from that.

Cllr Milsted: Some things have been passed across that we were not planning to because we did not have to, but we did it because the towns wanted them. Street cleaning is an example. The town said, "We have always known we can do a better job than you guys," and we said, "Okay; have it," and, funnily enough, they were right.

Steve Evans: We largely agree with that. It is a continuum. There is a development stage to go through. You will not get there instantly. How far you can move from one side of the equation to the other, or on the spectrum, remains to be seen. Clearly, some of the work we do-in the children’s and adult care services and so on-is highly professionalised and skilled and needs expertise to grow over a number of years; in other areas things are ripe for communities to take them over, but the spectrum will change. One of the things we recognise is the need to build skills, capacity, confidence and trust. If we focus on those key elements in our work we do not know how far it will take us in terms of what services could be taken over and what problems we may solve that mean services are not needed. Look at childcare for neighbours. At one stage there was a danger of doing a CRB check for neighbours looking after children. Children playing in a community setting means you do not need play groups, so the question is how far you can push the notion of improving services and having local people deliver, moving away from service purchase or provision to being communities again. There is quite a spectrum from one end to the other, but I think we can move some way and put some of that ownership and community pride back in the system. How far it can go I have yet to see.

Chair: At that point we have to end our session. Thank you all for coming and giving us that very interesting information.

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Dr Andrew Povey, Leader, Surrey County Council, and Cllr Michael Green, Leader, Lancashire County Council, gave evidence.

Q302 Chair: Welcome and thank you very much for coming to give evidence. For the sake of our records, will you say who you are and the organisations you represent?

Dr Povey: My name is Andrew Povey and I am Leader of Surrey County Council.

Cllr Gree n: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Green and I am the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning at Lancashire County Council.

Chair: Thank you both for coming, and particularly at such short notice, Cllr Green.

Q303 Heidi Alexander: I would like to start with something that we have not spoken about with the previous witnesses, namely some of the financial aspects of greater powers being devolved to a lower local level. I notice that Lancashire’s written submission says that "localist arguments may require more robust evidence to counter claims that centralisation generates economies of scale and is therefore inherently more efficient." I wonder whether I may start with Cllr Green. If localism proves not to be more efficient as a way to deliver services is it still worth doing?

Cllr Green: Thank you for the question. Personally and as a county council as a whole, we believe in the devolution of services down to the lowest possible level. There are lots of advantages to that. We have practical examples of where we have devolved those services and the efficiency savings achieved as a result. But there needs to be a measure of caution. It is rather like a pendulum. For far too long the pendulum has swung in the direction of centralisation. Now the pendulum is swinging back there is possibly also a danger of it going too far in the direction of localism. There needs to be a measure of the reality on the ground. That is where my cautious approach and that of the county council as a whole comes from.

If services are delivered on a central basis there are indeed economies of scale. You have to overcome those by the localist agenda. I believe that you can deliver services more efficiently locally, but in some cases we still need more concrete evidence. There are proponents of centralisation who would take the opposite argument to mine and always put forward the argument of economies of scale. Those who firmly believe in the localist agenda need to provide firm evidence on the ground that it can be delivered more efficiently. To lead on to the other question about whether there are other reasons for following the localism agenda even if it was not more efficient, I would argue that there are. There are a number of examples. First, it creates a stronger link between the resident and the people who govern that area; second, potentially it increases accountability. One issue that I do not believe has been raised this afternoon from what I have heard is the crisis of faith in public institutions from Parliament right down to county councils, local district councils, parish councils and other public sector bodies across the board. Collectively, we have a duty to overcome that crisis of faith. That can come about by delivering services closer to people, by greater accountability and increasing the mechanisms to provide that accountability. I believe we can do that by partnerships between local authorities and Parliament.

Q304 Heidi Alexander: From your experience in Lancashire does the devolution of power down to local communities have an inherent cost? Have you made any assessment of those costs?

Cllr Green: We have not experienced those costs so far but it is a "watch this space" idea. We have devolved services down to district and parish councils. Lancashire is a very diverse place. It has 1.25 million residents; from east to west there are lots of different issues. Parts of the county are some of the most deprived areas of the country; other parts of the county are very affluent. Geographically, some of it extends into the Pennines and some to the coast, so that is different. There are political differences. It is a diverse county. Devolving these services can bring clear advantages. As to accountability, the county council was one of the first to webcast all of its meetings. People do watch those webcasts. We have cabinet question times. The cabinet goes out into the different communities and gives the public an opportunity to ask questions, and we publish performance data on a regular basis.

Q305 Heidi Alexander: Dr Povey?

Dr Povey: I would agree with the advantages that Michael referred to, in the sense of it being desirable for the localist agenda and we absolutely welcome it. I think that often what you are doing is getting an add-on. For instance, in the recent snow the county authority will clear the main roads and then perhaps it will ask local farmers to clear some of the rural roads. To me, this involves local people and parish councils, possibly providing them with some equipment and that sort of thing. Therefore, you get a gain in the service by devolving down some of that responsibility. As to a more obvious example of saving money, one of the things we are in the process of doing is to devolve our youth service down to local joint committees between borough and county council. Therefore, within each borough and district there is a joint committee. We reckon that over the next two or three years we can take out about £4.5 million from our budget of £20 million by devolving it down to the local committee. They will then have a menu of options about what services they purchase for their area. Therefore, we get a more locally defined service, probably purchasing more from the voluntary sector, and make considerable savings at the same time.

Q306 Heidi Alexander: How much does it cost to run those committees?

Dr Povey: They have one officer and part of another officer, so I guess the cost is £50,000 to £60,000.

Q307 Heidi Alexander: Per committee?

Dr Povey: Per committee, but they do a lot more than what I have just said.

Q308 George Hollingbery: I want to ask both of you how you think your councils will look as organisations in five years’ time. Will loads of services have been taken off you by community groups? Will you have devolved the whole lot down? Will you just be a commissioning organisation? How do you think you will look?

Dr Povey: I think there will be an increase in the amount that we commission rather than provide in terms of some of the services being provided by voluntary organisations. I think in that sense we will be smaller organisations. Members will have a stronger role in terms of their local areas in making sure that these more locally defined services meet the needs of their particular divisions. There will be those differences. I hope that with the general power of competence and other things we will be doing things differently. If you talk more generally in terms of the changes, place-based budgets, yes, please; there is a whole raft of things that could be very different.

Q309 George Hollingbery: Cllr Green?

Cllr Green: My answer is remarkably similar to that of Dr Povey. I believe that we will look very different. Obviously, part of that is due to our diminishing finances as a county council over the next three to four years; part of it will be for the localism agenda and trying to devolve those services down to lower levels and out to the community. Therefore, I think the answer is remarkably similar. I think that leadership by councillors is key. If we are to deliver localism at all there needs to be extremely strong political leadership in the local area and the public must be assured of that prioritisation and accountability of service, backed I suggest by national minimum standards put forward by the Government of the day. I think they are critical. But the key thing is strong local political direction.

Q310 George Hollingbery: I completely agree; that is very important. What proportion of that change do you think is driven by the reduction in funds over the next four years and what proportion by the localism agenda? Perhaps you would give a ballpark figure because, clearly, you cannot give a precise answer.

Dr Povey: I am not sure I can really answer that. This was a direction in which we were going and the Localism Bill has given it tremendous impetus, but I do not think I am able to put a figure on it.

Q311 George Hollingbery: What is driving your decisions now?

Dr Povey: We have a set of priorities within the council and that defines what we do. Clearly, there is also a financial driver at the moment because of the reductions we have just had. There is a tremendous desire to drive things down, because we recognise that we can get that additional and more personalised service by involving people more locally, so I think it is a twin track.

Q312 George Hollingbery: Do you think that the community right to challenge and the increase in the number of providers of services across the piece will necessarily have a localist impact in the end? National organisations could spring up. There are all sorts of different scenarios about how this could work. Will it necessarily produce a more patchwork, postcode-lottery type and more localised service, or is there perhaps a perverse consequence to this?

Cllr Green: It almost remains to be seen. As the months and years pass by we need to see what the actual result will be. It may well be that large charities and third-sector organisations that have a national footprint, for instance, take on services in particular areas. It could be argued-the implication is in the question-that that is not true localism, but it fundamentally remains to be seen. It will also differ from area to area depending on the ability and capacity for local organisations to take on some of the services, if they wish to do so.

Q313 George Hollingbery: We have had representations in this inquiry about the difficulty of hard-to-reach or dispersed groups. Is the ultimate consequence of having some of those groups who need services that national representation will have to be part of the localist agenda to get some of their issues dealt with?

Dr Povey: I do not see why it should be national. Within a county authority one can identify specific groups, either geographic ones or perhaps disabled people, spread throughout the community. One can do that at county level. I do not see why it would need to be a national body.

Q314 Chair: Picking up the point George made, is there a big difference between localism that is driven by an ideological reason-that it is believed to be the best way to deliver-and that which is driven by the necessity of financial constraint? In one sense you are saying to the community, "In partnership with you we think that things can be done better. Do you want to join with us in that process?" In the other case you are saying, "You won’t have a service unless you run it." Is that not a very different situation?

Dr Povey: Clearly, both are going on. If we look back before the Localism Bill, there was a strong incentive for personalisation of services particularly in adult social care. That is probably the best example. That was recognised and I think people were already beginning to talk about the same approach perhaps for children with special educational needs. There was already a thrust in that direction for personalisation of service. I think that within counties there was always a bit of local involvement with parish councils and things like that. I think that was there and that the Localism Bill has given a tremendous impetus to it, and I also believe that the financial driver is there.

Cllr Green: Broadly speaking, I would agree with those sentiments, but the will was already there and we were already doing it because we believed in it. Our county has a parish council charter that has been in place for some time. It has strong relations with parishes and town councils across the county.

Q315 Chair: But is there not a difference between a community being told, "If you want to help run this service you can. That’s something we are up for as a council," and saying to a community, "You have to run this service; otherwise, it will shut"? It may be a community that does not necessarily have all the skills, abilities and requirements to do it.

Dr Povey: I still think it is a bit of both; that would be my view.

Cllr Green: Chair, you are quite right that there would indeed be a difference. Lancashire has not quite reached the point of saying that to the community.

Q316 Mike Freer: Dr Povey, I think I am right in saying that Surrey decided that all its schools would become academies because the cost of mixed delivery meant that the residual costs were disproportionate on the rump. If I may give you some artistic licence, if you extend that to a patchwork of delivery across two counties where some communities take on services under localism and others do not have the capacity and so it has to be done in-house, do you have the flexibility of structures to be able to do that, or will you end up with those bits that do not go down the localism route closing because the cost base of what is left is no longer sustainable?

Dr Povey: On the question of academies, that idea was floated but it has not been pursued as yet. I know there was some press about it. As to your more general point, as an authority we are always looking at ways to work with, for instance, our neighbouring authorities. We have an organisation called South East Seven where we work with six other upper tier authorities to see how we can work together. In some services you go bigger and get those efficiencies. That could take into account something like a school support service. We have done that differently anyway. We have a company that does that which then sells to other places, so there are lots of different ways of doing it. Within Surrey we can work with our districts and boroughs in sharing some services, so there are lots of different ways to provide services that take into account the changing nature of the situation and localism.

Q317 Mike Freer: So, you think that if half the services go down the localist route and half do not, you can cover the cost base of what is left?

Dr Povey: I do not think I said that. One would have to look at it very carefully. Perhaps sharing it with neighbouring authorities might be a way forward.

Cllr Green: I would agree with that. Again, we would have to assess it at the time. There has not been any great rush in Lancashire for schools to apply for academy status, but if that began to materialise we would have to look at the situation and at different options. But locality working depends on the size of the footprint. For one service that footprint needs to be small; for a different service you need to look far wider and work in co-operation with neighbouring authorities.

Q318 Mike Freer: To follow that through, obviously it is quite easy to say that you will encourage volunteers to run that library because it is a physical entity concentrated in one area. What if you have to produce, say, meals to the Hindu community, which is scattered across a very wide area? How do you cope with that where you have small clusters and do not have the critical mass for localism? How do you encourage localism where the service delivery is so scattered?

Cllr Green: That is an excellent question that is difficult to answer.

Dr Povey: We are feeling our way on a lot of this. Although there was some impetus there before the Localism Bill, it will play out over the next two or three years. I think some of the questions are quite hard.

Q319 Mark Pawsey: We have spoken quite a bit about variation in service level. I think it took five or 10 minutes in today’s evidence session before somebody spoke about the postcode lottery. We have already heard it referred to in this particular part of the session. First, is it a problem that you get variation within an authority, because in some areas it has been devolved down to a local community to deliver the service but in other parts the council may have retained that responsibility? Second, does it matter if there is variation between one authority and a neighbouring authority? Following on from that, just how much variation will people be prepared to tolerate?

Dr Povey: Unfortunately, the press loves the phrase "postcode lottery" and that tends to be picked up, but as the leader of an authority it is our job to decide on the level of service that should be provided within our authority. If at the end of the day it is different from Kent next door or from Lancashire, so be it; that is the political choice we should be making within our authorities. I do not have a problem as between authorities. In Surrey clearly there will be differences in service because the northern half is rather urban and the southern half is rural, so in some senses there will always be differences in service. For instance, the performance of the fire service in terms of response time will be different in the most rural parts of Surrey compared with the middle of Guildford. There is an acceptance of that kind of difference, but these are political choices. If you have strong leaders leading the communities then you will get differences between them, and quite rightly so.

Cllr Green: Again, my response is quite similar, but I disagree with the argument that localism will create a postcode lottery. We have a postcode lottery now because a central state has tried to impose the same levels of service right across the country. We have different communities with very different needs, even in just one county never mind across the whole of England and Wales, so I disagree with that. We already have a postcode lottery. Localism means that we can channel and tune those services according to the need of the individual communities, so it will be much more focused upon what our residents actually need. It may well result in differences of services. My personal viewpoint is that I do not see a problem in that as long as there is a clear political view that that is what the communities want, but there is an issue of the media and we must also be aware that residents in some cases think that the same service should be provided everywhere. We have to bear in mind that, for instance, local authorities and councils are probably the most efficient part of the public sector and yet at times the public does not see that and still thinks it is inefficient; it does not see the improvements that have been delivered.

Q320 Mark Pawsey: If you are comfortable with variation are you comfortable with service provided in one part of your county and not provided at all within another because that is not what localism has determined as a consequence of consultation with residents and community leaders in those sectors?

Dr Povey: We already have it, because I discovered only the other day that we have a meals-on-wheels service in part of the county and not the rest, and I do not quite know why.

Q321 Mark Pawsey: What do those who do not have it think about it?

Dr Povey: As I say, I discovered this only the other day; because it is done in conjunction with the districts and boroughs, probably in this case in that example it is more the district or borough that has made the decision, although the county subsidises it.

Q322 Stephen Gilbert: We have shone the spotlight on local authorities a lot this afternoon, but do you think the Government is doing enough to challenge the centralising tendencies of Whitehall itself?

Dr Povey: We would like to see more power devolved to local authorities. If I look across Surrey and at where most public expenditure is, I think the piece that is missing from the link is the DWP. I think that is the bit I would like to see. If in future you are to concentrate on those particular complex families that cost an enormous amount in all sorts of areas of public expenditure, you need the DWP on board. That would be the most obvious one.

Cllr Green: I welcome what the Government is doing. The general direction in terms of localism is correct. There have been a number of new initiatives and policy announcements that go broadly in the right direction and I applaud those. The Government can go further. My starting point is that local authorities can deliver more, and more efficiently, than central government. If you give us the tools to do the job, to quote someone, local authorities can get on and do that. We need more funding but it is being cut back. Maybe that is something you can look at in Parliament over the years ahead.

I would also sound a note of caution. Sometimes localism can go a bit too far. I give the example of free schools. The Government wants to remove the need for planning permission for free schools. You have to temper that with caution, because it means that any building in a public area can be converted into a school, but if you change it from a business, say a shop, into a school that brings different challenges to the neighbourhood: parking and road safety difficulties. If you remove a business or a shop and convert it to a school, that has an impact on the economy. All those factors would normally be factored into a planning application, and planning consent could be given or not, as the case may be, having regard to all those. If we go ahead with the Government’s wish to provide that freedom to communities to set up schools without needing those planning consents, while I understand where they are coming from, in practice difficulties may be caused for the community as a result of that.

So temper that with a bit of caution. In general in planning there seems to be a move away from a need for planning permission based on a central structure and towards bringing it down to a more local level. Again, I would welcome that in theory, but there is a note of caution. Take the example of a quarry. In 99% of cases a local community will not want a quarry in their area but strategically there may well be a need for it on a regional or sub-regional level. If you take it down to local level you may not get it. That would be my note of caution.

Q323 Stephen Gilbert: What do you think central Government is left doing in the new localised world that we are going into? What will the central Government Departments be doing?

Dr Povey: It is clear that some functions would not come down to local authorities, but central Government has to set the framework and the overall direction. You are a set of politicians, so you have a set of priorities; that is what you should be setting out for us to deliver within our own local frameworks.

Q324 Stephen Gilbert: So, we at the centre should be telling you what to deliver?

Dr Povey: No. You have to set out themes, if you like, rather than detail.

Cllr Green: Whitehall is not set up as a delivery vehicle. What we need is guidance from Parliament as to what kind of issues we need to look at, not so much how to look at them. Therefore, it is what, not how. It is key that we should have minimum standards, because nobody wants services to residents to fall below that standard. We need minimum standards, guidance on them and perhaps the structures to scrutinise and give support for commissioning and accountability, but then to give freedom to local authorities and communities to get on and deliver those services.

Q325 Stephen Gilbert: Is there not a conflict there? What if the minimum standard is weekly bin collections and the local community says it does not mind all the hoopla and it can deal with fortnightly bin collections?

Dr Povey: That is an example of where the centre is trying to over-specify, shall we say.

Q326 Bob Blackman: Looking forward a couple of years, the Localism Bill becomes the Localism Act; community groups deliver some services; parish councils determine this and district councils ask for that, and you sit at county level. Where do you think the democratic oversight comes to make sure that all of this is transparent and is delivered?

Dr Povey: You clearly have democratic oversight at all three tiers of local government, so that is in place. Certainly, Surrey has gone very much along the route of openness and transparency within all its dealings. As Michael said, we are webcasting and publishing everything we can so you have as much information as possible for the public to make those judgments on what you are doing.

Q327 Bob Blackman: As an aside, how many people actually watch the webcast?

Dr Povey: I accept that at the moment it is hundreds rather than thousands.

Q328 Bob Blackman: What is the cost of delivering that?

Dr Povey: It is negligible.

Q329 Bob Blackman: Cllr Green?

Cllr Green: I think we could expand the role of scrutiny committees within local authorities to make sure that accountability is there, and there is a possible argument for saying we could expand the Select Committee role into councils around the country because, no matter which way we look at it, a lot of funds will come from central Government. Presumably, Parliament will want to maintain some level of control over those funds and ensure that every pound is spent wisely for the good of the residents of the country. Perhaps there is that overarching scrutiny role and possibly joint committees set up with councillors and even the local MP. That kind of model exists in other countries and it could be role-modelled in parts of this country to see how it works in practice.

Q330 Bob Blackman: Cllr Povey, your concept seems to be very much about the enabling council and delivery. How do you think central Government can bring in, say, health care and other things? As council leader would you be prepared to be responsible for the delivery of health care at a local level?

Dr Povey: Yes, very clearly. The changes that are coming give us the responsibility for public health. The formal term is the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for the area, which really will define what health commissioning should go on. I am very enthusiastic about it.

Q331 Bob Blackman: I believe that Surrey PCT has gone through some financial challenges.

Dr Povey: Yes. Having had a session with the chairman of the PCT very recently, I think he has those under control. We are starting our conversations with the GP commissioning groups. There must be a bringing together of health, adult social care and children’s services in particular. I think that for large county authorities like ourselves that is where they need to come together.

Q332 Bob Blackman: Do you consider that to be an opportunity for the future?

Dr Povey: Yes, very much.

Q333 Bob Blackman: Cllr Green, from your perspective do you think that the Government localism agenda will drive away from the primacy of local authority control down to those who are not subject to local authority control?

Cllr Green: To an extent, possibly. You have to be aware of the potential democratic deficit, because there needs to be that accountability. Ultimately, as councillors or MPs you have accountability to the public via the ballot box.

Q334 Bob Blackman: How much of that is a problem given that local people may say, "The council are not providing this and councillors are not doing their job. We want to get on and do something and want people to stop interfering"?

Cllr Green: If that is the starting point for a local community group to do something because the council is not providing the service, I would argue that that is fine. If it is from the point of view that the council is providing the service but that community group wants to take on the running of it, that is a different argument, and then you must be aware of issues of accountability and make sure you have some level of accountability.

Chair: Thank you both very much indeed; it was an excellent session.