Power failure, by Tim Thororogood

18 Jan 07
The local government white paper promised a bright new future for 'radical and devolutionary reform'. But the process has already been short-circuited, argues Tim Thorogood

19 January 2007

The local government white paper promised a bright new future for 'radical and devolutionary reform'. But the process has already been short-circuited, argues Tim Thorogood

Ministers claimed that the local government reforms would be the most radical for generations, but the reality has turned out to be more prosaic.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, to give it its full title, was published just before Christmas and takes forward the pledges outlined in October's white paper.

It is clear that the government thinks it has delivered 'radical and devolutionary reform'. But the extent to which the Bill actually devolves, and is truly radical, is open for debate. We need to define what real devolution would involve and compare the measures in the white paper and the Bill with this.

There are in fact six dimensions to devolution to councils, dimensions implied by the white paper itself: increased control over public services in the community; greater financial autonomy; freedom from top-down inspection and performance management; greater influence over other local organisations; more prominent and effective leadership; and increased local accountability. As we shall see, the proposals fall well short of delivering these.

In terms of the first dimension, there are some measures in the white paper and the Bill that extend local government's powers and functions, such as changes to the processes for introducing byelaws and creating parish councils. But these are small beer. Within councils there are many who advocate transferring a variety of local public services to municipal ownership, such as policing, health and further education. But the government has not even opened up any debate on this.

Next is finance, an issue the white paper and the Bill have assiduously skirted. Certainly it would have been wrong to pre-empt the Lyons Inquiry's final report, but there can be little doubt that the scale of what is being considered in relation to local finance is limited. Any substantial recommendations that Lyons might make will be hindered by the report being published so late in the day. At this stage, however, the debate must wait for Lyons to show his hand.

Deregulation was the white paper's one true triumph. For too long, local government resources and energy have been absorbed by an overly complex and demanding performance and inspection regime. The paper's proposals to rationalise the entire system, to draw together Local Area Agreements and the partnership agenda with the post-2008 performance assessment regime, were appropriate, simple, sensible and likely to deliver improvements.

How unfortunate, then, that the Bill itself has so quickly undermined the white paper's promise. It clearly gives the secretary of state the power to agree, change or 'designate' any part of the LAA, whether relating to identified central interests or to purely local issues agreed and negotiated locally. This can't be right, and seriously questions the model's devolutionary integrity. Power is given with one hand and taken away with the other.

Turning to influence, one can have no argument with the Bill's overall direction. There is a series of measures intended to make councils first among equals in the locality, privileged in partnership because of their unique democratic mandate and power of wellbeing. These include a legislative duty on identified public sector partners to co-operate with the LAA process, an enhanced leadership role for councils in Local Strategic Partnerships and extended powers to scrutinise public sector partners named in the 'duty to co-operate'.

But the Bill does not show if these duties and roles have any teeth. What counts as 'co-operation'? How many missed meetings equal 'uncooperative'? What happens when a lack of co-operation has been established?

The truth is that influence needs to be practical if it is to have any impact. Wales provides a good example of this in its Local Health Boards, which have the power to decide local health funding and sign off local health strategies. Each also has significant local authority representation.

If the Bill's duty to co-operate and scrutiny powers created real and practical ways such as this for local authorities to influence the decisions and actions of their partners, then it would be very welcome. But as it stands today, it might be a toothless beast.

As with the proposals on performance, the Bill is assertive when it comes to leadership. It pushes for stronger leadership through models where power is focused on one person (mayors, indirectly elected four-year term leaders and directly elected four-year term Cabinets).

Certainly, more effective leadership is needed, and stronger local government. But the two do not necessarily add up to a need for 'stronger leadership', particularly if what is meant is a more individualistic leadership model. The planned four-year term for leaders, as well as being unworkable, is explicitly designed to focus strength in the individual.

True, such a model has been effective in some places. Doncaster and Hackney have benefited from having an elected mayor, for example. But conversely, Brighton and Hove's committee-based leadership system has also produced good results. Not only that, but there is a need for consensus-based leadership in the third of councils that have no single political party in control. Where power is necessarily shared, an individualistic model can lead to conflict, even breakdown. The nature of effective leadership is that it is always contingent on circumstances.

The final dimension is local accountability and here it is very hard to see how the planned 'community call for action', outlined in the Bill, will do anything besides providing more paperwork for weary councillors. Again, the rub is practicality. The legislation gives an account of how the wheels will turn, but fails to answer the more critical question of how the wheels turning will make anything go. Power means being able to change things, but the community call for action is a car with no engine.

It would be far more interesting to give the community and frontline councillors the opportunity to influence the new performance regime. Imagine if their recommendations could be fed into the Audit Commission through the planned risk-based approach, potentially summoning the inspectors? This would be real devolution because it would involve the application of power.

And it is power that provides the real challenge. Central government must recognise that the public are not fools – they know where the power lies, and they know it is not with local government. There is no point engaging with a powerless organisation.

The white paper and the Bill are welcome steps down a devolutionary path, but they are small steps, not radical leaps. If central government is serious about participation, it must devolve real power, not tokens.

Tim Thorogood is chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit

PFjan2007

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top