DWP on 'different planet' over localism

8 Nov 11
The Department for Work and Pensions is ‘on a different planet’ to other parts of government in its approach to localism, a leading MP has said.

By Richard Johnstone | 8 November 2011

The Department for Work and Pensions is ‘on a different planet’ to other parts of government in its approach to localism, a leading MP has said.

 

 

Clive Betts

Clive Betts, chair of the Commons communities and local government select committee, said the DWP’s Work Programme was the main example of an inconsistent approach in Whitehall.

 

 

Speaking on the day that the government’s Localism Bill gained parliamentary approval, he said that the Department for Communities and Local Government was ‘determined to make progress’. However, the Work Programme in particular showed that this was not universal across government.

The DWP had awarded 18 regional contracts for welfare-to-work schemes without involving local authorities, he said.

Betts suggested that some government departments’ response to localism plans was to say ‘that sounds like a good idea but we will refer it back to Whitehall’.

He added: ‘The evidence that we [the committee] have from the Work Programme is that the DWP is on a different planet from the DCLG.’

But Ian Mulheirn, director of the Social Market Foundation, defended the Work Programme. He told the round table that while the SMF had been critical of parts of it, there was a difference between political localism and operational localism. Although the DWP’s programme was centrally commissioned, it would be able to adapt to the needs of local people, he said.

The round table also debated the government’s plans for greater choice and competition in the provision of public services. When Prime Minister David Cameron launched the Open public services white paper in July, he said that this would mean that the state would ‘have to justify why it makes sense to run a monopoly’ in any non-competitive services.

Susan Anderson, the CBI’s public services director, backed these plans. She said providing more efficient public services was essential for the success of the government’s deficit reduction plan.

However, she suggested there was ‘mixed progress’ in government. She called for a move to outcome-based commissioning, with the government specifying outcomes in a tender process but not providing services by default. Instead, the ‘best provider’ should undertake them.

Other speakers at the round table included Dan Corry, chief executive of New Philanthropy Capital, Phillip Blond, director of ResPublica, Maurice Glasman, social theorist and Labour life peer and Ben Page, Ipsos MORI chief executive. Full coverage of the Open public services round table will appear in the December issue of Public Finance

Spacer

CIPFA logo

PF Jobsite logo

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top