WRITTEN EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY
KENT COUNTY
COUNCIL (LOCO 07)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
¾ Kent
County Council strongly believes that decentralisation and the
principle of subsidiarity ie that decision making should be taken
at the most appropriate local level of democratic representation
offers the most targeted and responsive approach to public service
delivery.
¾ The
key requirement from Whitehall departments to achieve decentralisation
and savings will be their trust in local Government. What has
always been lacking in the British governance model is the constitutional
protection of local Government and a strong distinction between
national and local Government roles.
¾ Greater
financial autonomy is required and we believe that upper tier
authorities are the most appropriate choice to act as the responsible
body for expenditure allocated to an area for the delivery of
local services. Following on from the Total Place Initiative we
consider Place Based Budgets the natural vehicle to commission
services across the public, private and voluntary sector according
to real local need, reducing duplication, empowering local communities
and releasing real financial savings for the taxpayer.
¾ We believe
that upper-tier local authorities have a particular responsibility
to act as the strategic commissioner across local areas for the
wider range of public services. We are exploring a move to area-based
commissioning for Kent, using pooled budgets to a single pot of
funding that can be allocated according to priorities set by KCC
elected Members and formalised in a local commissioning plan.
We also think that there would be greater opportunities in having
a single district based commissioning plan for two tier areas—shared
by County Council Members, MPs and District Councillors covering
County and District services.
¾ Many
barriers at a local level can be mitigated by removing unnecessary
burdens and restrictions which limit the freedom of local public
services to operate freely and take on increased risk, so that
we can begin to do things radically different at the local level
it is hoped this will be a key plank of the forthcoming Decentralisation
and Localism Bill.
¾ Taking
localism to its fullest extent, "local agents" include
Big Society—We feel that there is a role for Kent County
Council here in supporting the Voluntary and Community Sector;
encouraging civic action through volunteering; and, for example,
giving practical support via financial start-up capital.
¾ It should
be up to this tier of Government to self-regulate their performance,
leaving inspection targeted on service specific areas of risk
where there is a role for proper professional challenge, for example
by a body such as Ofsted.
1. The extent to which decentralisation leads
to more effective public service delivery; and what the limits
are, or should be, of localism
1.1 Kent County Council strongly believes that
decentralisation leads to more effective and efficient public
service delivery. We are fully committed to the principle of subsidiarity
ie that decision making should be taken at the most appropriate
local level as this offers the most targeted and responsive approach
to public service delivery. We have consistently made this position
clear in past consultations including the CLG 2008-9 inquiry "The Balance of Power: Central and Local Governmentand
the July 2009 consultation by CLG "Strengthening Local
Democracy". We welcome the fact that many quangos are
being or are to be abolished.
1.2 We believe that the principles of localism
and subsidiarity go hand in hand, which means that localism should
be always be centred on using the most appropriate tier for decision-
making. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise the need for
democratic legitimacy in decision-making, by those who can fully
represent local communities and understand their priorities; therefore
a localist approach should be focused on devolving down to the
most appropriate level of democratic representation. Local
authorities should be trusted to act as first amongst equals in
the desire to improve their areas economic, environmental and
social conditions.
1.3 A new constitutional relationship between
local and national Government needs to be forged and it is hoped
this will be a key plank of the forthcoming Decentralisation
and Localism Bill. However, we have significant concerns that
a Power of General Competence may suffer from the same weaknesses
as the Power of Well-Being and instead propose enshrining the
"subsidiarity" principle into law. The LGA Act 2000
Power of Well-being has been proved inadequate for the purposes
originally envisioned—as evidenced by the recent Court of
Appeal LAML judgement that ruled that it was not within the powers
of London Boroughs to set up a mutual insurance company using
this power. Despite national Government's intention that this
would be a permissive power for local Government, it was flawed
by the courts interpretation of this of actions taken through
this power as ultra vires. The strength of the "Power
of General competence" hinges on the way it is interpreted
by the judiciary which is why the Government and Parliament to
seek to ensure that any legislation, primary or secondary is well
defined and explicit.
1.4 What has always been lacking in the British
governance model is the constitutional protection of local Government
and a strong distinction between national and local Government
roles. Our existence is dependant on unpredictable ministerial
discretion and parliamentary approval, with few safeguards for
our autonomy. There are many mechanisms that exist which could
offer a more robust model of local governance. One of these which
would be easy to enshrine in British law is the European Charter
of Local Self Government, which was already ratified in 1998.
1.5 These issues have long since been recognised
- not least those articulated by the House of Commons Justice
Select Committee (in their report - Constitutional Reform and
Renewal) that Local Government powers should be enshrined
in legislation, "In comparison with many other democracies,
local Government in England remains relatively weak in relation
to national Government … This raises the question of whether
the powers and structures of local Government would or should
be recognised in a written constitution, with a specified process
for any changes to be made in them." We believe it should
then be up to national Government and local Government to jointly
set the definition and any concurrent functions for local Government.
2. The lessons for decentralisation from Total
Place, and the potential to build on the work done under that
initiative, particularly through place-based budgeting
2.1 As the Kent Total Place Report has highlighted,
one of the key benefits of the initiative has been the general
recognition that the relationship between national Government
and local public sector service providers must fundamentally change.
The work undertaken as part of the pilot has offered substantial
evidence that decentralisation is not only more effective, but
in a time of financial austerity can offer significant savings
for the public purse that do not impact on front line service
delivery. The Kent Total Place report highlighted the potential
to save up to £40 million through the rationalisation of
public sector assets in the county.
2.2 For decentralisation to truly work there
needs to be commitment from all Whitehall departments that join
up local delivery. Kent's experience in the Margate Task Force
strand of our Total Place pilot was that commitment across different
organisations to changing their way of working was driven by a
clear rationale and a shared consensus about the key issues for
the two wards, ie an evidence based understanding of local needs.
However commitment locally is not always matched by an ability
from Whitehall departments to let go and empower local managers
to work with local partners on joining up services. For example,
there is a clear rationale for linking aspects of the JobCentre
Plus service delivery with the Gateway model (a work stream of
Kent's Total Place pilot), and we have had excellent engagement
from local JobCentre Plus colleagues on opportunities to deliver
savings and improve service delivery; however there has been slow
progress in seeing this converted into concrete action. That said,
momentum has been building over the last twelve months and there
is now a shared recognition of the need for change.
2.3 Following on from the work kick-started under
the Total Place Initiative, we consider Place Based Budgets the
natural vehicle to commission services across the public, private
and voluntary sector according to real local need, reducing duplication,
empowering local communities and releasing real financial savings
for the taxpayer. Total Place has provided a catalyst for local
partners to fully commit to new and challenging ways of working
together at a local level, and with the robust governance structures
in place to deliver place based budgets across local partners
we believe there is now the potential not just to make significant
savings for the public purse, but to also improve delivery to
truly reflect local priorities,
2.4 Another key message from the legacy of the
Total Place Initiative is that it is not just funding streams
that can better deliver better outcomes from a decentralised approach.
Many barriers at a local level can be mitigated by removing unnecessary
burdens and restrictions which limit the freedom of local public
services to operate freely and take on increased risk, so that
we can begin to do things radically different at the local level
without having to continually justify ourselves or seek approval
from risk-averse spending departments in Whitehall. By devolving
locally delivery budgets to local agents, with clear and robust
lines of accountability, there should be the freedom and flexibility
for Local Government to ensure that funding is used creatively
and effectively.
3. The role of local Government in a decentralised
model of local public service delivery, and the extent to which
localism can and should extend to other local agents
3.1 Local Government must be at the heart of
an effective locally led approach to public service delivery.
Over the last decade local Government has become increasingly
efficient, innovating and adapting to improve the quality of services
to local residents. This success has been delivered by placing
service users at the heart of service design and delivery, empowering
individuals and local communities and improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of local Government services.
3.2 We believe that upper-tier local authorities
have a particular responsibility to act as the strategic commissioner
across local areas for the wider range of public services such
as police, health and welfare. It is our view that to be truly
"localist" local delivery agents should have an element
of democratic legitimacy—given their unique position as
the democratically elected representatives of local people, local
Government is better equipped to make the decisions on their behalf
that align local priorities with the resources available. However,
at the present moment in time, this vision is fractured and there
is a danger that the influence that legitimate democratically
elected Government can have on some services is being further
eroded and split.
3.3 Localism requires a local infrastructure,
and we are exploring a move to area-based commissioning for Kent,
using pooled budgets to a single pot of funding that can be allocated
according to priorities set by KCC elected Members and formalised
in a local commissioning plan.
3.4 However, we think there would be greater
opportunities in having a single district based commissioning
plan for two tier areas—shared by County Council Members,
MPs and District Councillors covering County and District services.
This would give greater leverage in the use of resources but also
rationalise partnership arrangements. For example, the possibility
of merging our Local Strategic Partnerships into these arrangements
would bring in wider partners.
3.5 Taking localism to its fullest extent, "local
agents" include Big Society activities and these cover Public
service reform: ie public services being run by mutuals, co-operatives,
charities and social enterprises; and Civic action/Community empowerment:
an encouragement on the individual to become more civic minded.
We feel that there is a role for Kent County Council here in supporting
the Voluntary and Community Sector; encouraging civic action through
volunteering; and, for example, giving practical support via financial
start-up capital.
4. The action which will be necessary on the
part of Whitehall departments to achieve effective decentralised
public service delivery
4.1 The key requirement from Whitehall departments
to achieve decentralisation will be their trust in local Government.
Mechanisms for decentralisation will not be successful unless
they are grounded in a strong relationship between national and
local Government and this requires a significant culture change.
It must be consistent across all departments rather than piecemeal
engagement on particular policy issues, which was the experience
of local authorities during the Total Place Initiative pilot.
There also needs to be more consistency of approach to localism
in policymaking across Whitehall departments. At present, local
Government's role in the localism agenda is interpreted differently
in each departmental policy; for example the de minimis role for
local Government in the proposed reforms for Education and Policing,
conflicting with the approach taken in the NHS White paper proposals
to increase the role of local Government in public health and
GP commissioning. These different messages undermine the legitimacy
of local authorities to act as enablers of localism, and make
their role ambiguous.
4.2 Over the last 25 years, our experience has
been that powers and responsibilities have been slowly eroded
from Government at a local level, undermining the democratic mandate
of councils to maintain a place shaping role on behalf of (and
accountable to) local communities. Local Government is adept at
solving national issues at a local level, for example the transfer
of responsibility and funding for care in the community to local
Government has enabled this tier of Government to manage down
the services accessed and their costs. Further moves in this direction
would be greatly welcomed.
4.3 There needs to be "one message"
from Whitehall so that there are not conflicting priorities filtered
down to local agents from each department that act as a barrier
to delivery. For example, the Asset Management strand of Kent's
Total Place pilot found that whilst many of the assets are locally
managed, control of a significant proportion of the Government
estate is managed nationally with an array of different protocols
and operational frameworks across some national Government spending
departments. Despite seeming widespread support for the amalgamation
of public sector estate, we still require a policy shift across
the public sector to bring coherence to this issue as a number
of organisations do not have the freedom to manage their assets.
4.4 A more coherent policy message from Whitehall
departments will allow local partners to fully focus on achieving
outcomes together rather than on resolving the tensions between
incompatible edicts from the centre.
5. The impact of decentralisation on the achievement
of savings in the cost of local public services and the effective
targeting of cuts to those services
5.1 As made clear in KCC's 2010 paper "Bold
steps for Radical Reform", and in the lessons learned from
Total Place, Kent County Council believes that significant savings
can only be achieved if local Government forges a new relationship
with Whitehall. We propose to move back to the original
intention at the core of Local Public Service Agreement
1 (PSA1)—a bi-lateral contract between HM Treasury
and local Government centred on the provision of Place Based Budgets,
as part of the new initiative in this area. This would allow a
serious debate with national Government about the longer-term
public policy outcomes facing our local communities rather
than simply being subject to the micro-management of short-term
targets. It would also reduce the instances of conflicting messages
and priorities coming from different Whitehall departments. Underpinning
each contract should be the aspiration to continue to transform
local public services and become more outcome focused and
customer centric.
6. What, if any, arrangements for the oversight
of local authority performance will be necessary to ensure effective
local public service delivery
6.1 The new coalition Government's swift action
to scrap top-down, target-driven assessments is strongly welcomed
by Kent County Council and we believe this approach will both
produce significant savings for the public purse and focus local
accountability more directly to the public . The introduction
of constitutional protection for local Government and a clear
demarcation of functions should mean it should be up to this tier
of Government to self-regulate their performance, leaving inspection
targeted on service specific areas of risk where there is a role
for proper professional challenge, for example by a body such
as Ofsted.
6.2 Kent County Council sees the Transparency
agenda as a fundamental principle of how we do business and are
working to ensure that we share as much of our data as possible
with the people of Kent so that they are able to directly hold
us to account for the decisions we make on their behalf.
6.3 As proposed in our paper "Bold Steps
to radical Reform" we believe that it is for the sector itself
to be responsible for bringing its poorest performers up to standard,
and reducing any risk that exists in the ability of the local
public service providers to deliver against local needs collectively.
We foresee the key role in sector-led support being with the Local
Government Association (LGA), who would work with the best authorities
in the area to actively support and engage any individual authority
who had consistently performed well below the average for the
sector and whose performance might have a detrimental impact on
meeting local priorities. The LGA's role would be as a broker
and facilitator of sector-led support, promoting exchange of information
and expertise across authorities.
7. How effective and appropriate accountability
can be achieved for expenditure on the delivery of local services,
especially for that voted by Parliament rather than raised locally
7.1 Whilst we clearly recognise the need for
Ministers to have absolute confidence and clarity about who is
responsible for devolved monies for which they would still be
financially and politically accountable for to Parliament, there
is no reason why a democratically locally elected representative
cannot be held to account for expenditure any less than a minister
or civil servant.
7.2 We believe that upper tier authorities are
the most appropriate choice to act as the responsible body for
expenditure allocated to an area for the delivery of local services—with
the authority's Leader acting as the named accountable individual
responsible for oversight and delivery of this expenditure to
the relevant Minister and the authority's Chief Financial Officer/S151
officer being the named accountable individual for financial probity
and oversight of devolved budgets. Both would regularly and formally
report to named Ministers and Senior Civil Servants responsible
for the oversight of devolved budgets. For monies that have been
devolved to local Government that ministers are responsible for
to Parliament, this should be accompanied by Parliamentary oversight.
September 2010
| 
