D-day for local government, by Sir Simon Milton

23 Nov 06
There's much to please local authorities in the white paper, particularly in terms of deregulation and decentralisation. But real devolution, letting councils decide local priorities, is still a long way off

24 November 2006

There's much to please local authorities in the white paper, particularly in terms of deregulation and decentralisation. But real devolution, letting councils decide local priorities, is still a long way off

It is often said by council leaders that a renaissance in English local democracy is dependent on the 'three Ds' — deregulation, decentralisation and devolution.

While the local government white paper did not go as far as we would have liked in some areas, the proposed slashing of 1,000 targets and performance indicators moves the deregulation agenda forward considerably.

It is pleasing to see that the government's proposals have reflected the widespread consensus that top-down tactics are past their sell-by date. Local authorities did not complain about the myriad of Whitehall targets because we dislike being burdened with paperwork, but because excessive regulation has stifled the performance of public services and wasted public money.

It is important we continue to make this point. Local Government Secretary Ruth Kelly and her department have demonstrated their commitment to deregulation, but how will her Cabinet colleagues feel about this in the run-up to the Comprehensive Spending Review, which will be used to develop national outcomes in place of the targets?

All government departments will have understandable and well-meaning priorities. There might well be a reluctance to let go, a fear of what might happen without the comfort of centralised control.

Kelly has pledged to secure support from her Cabinet colleagues, and this is encouraging. If there are still some ministers with doubts, I would ask them to consider the compelling case for giving councils of all political persuasions the freedom to tailor public service improvements to local need.

Prescriptive targets from the centre are often devised with the best of intentions, but end up distorting local priorities and not delivering what is best for residents. Take the example of Suffolk, where the local youth offending team wants to reduce the number of people entering the criminal justice system, but the Home Office has set a target for increasing the number of offenders brought to justice. Which should have priority — a local decision, taken by a local authority accountable to local people, or a Whitehall diktat?

Take another example from Barnsley. There the local priority is the prevention of antisocial behaviour, yet the police are subject to targets to reduce robbery, which is not a widespread problem in the town. There are countless other examples of councils being prevented from addressing the issues that matter most to local people because they are obliged by central government to play the tick-box target game.

This has not only demoralised frontline staff but also wasted their ability to improve public services for the people they serve.

On top of the targets, both councils and central government have been burdened by the cost of inspection. A Treasury report has put the cost of regulating local government alone at a jaw-dropping £2.5bn a year — about £100 extra on an average council tax bill. There can be no doubt the majority of this money would have been better spent on the front line.

For these reasons, it was good to see a commitment in the white paper to a more 'risk-based' approach, with fewer inspections. Nobody would deny that there are services of universal concern that should be subject to regular inspection, such as schools and care homes, but there is no reason why other services, such as libraries and other recreational facilities, require the same level of inspection.

Where the white paper disappoints is the lack of devolution of powers from the centre. Comparisons wBuying time to save the planetith our neighbours in Europe show that cities achieve better economic performance where they have more control over the key economic levers of housing, transport and skills. The Local Government Association made a strong case for devolution and not just deregulation in its Closer to people and places report.

Yet the white paper was silent on this. This issue will not go away and we need to redouble our efforts to persuade the Treasury and others that so much more can be achieved with a more localist approach.

Finally, of course, the whole issue of finance is absent from the white paper. For that we must await the conclusions of the Lyons Review, expected to be delivered to ministers next month. It will be hard to conclude that the government is genuinely committed to devolution if local authorities do not gain more financial autonomy, specifically a wider tax base.

While these omissions are significant, they should not detract from the very real progress that the white paper represents in terms of reinvigorating local ambition, choice and accountability.

Successive governments have kept too much power at the centre. Now we have a historic opportunity to return it to people and the places they live in.

Sir Simon Milton is the chair of the Local Government Association improvement board

PFnov2006

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top