09 May 2008
Another local government white paper is imminent — and if ministers are serious about devolution, this one must provide for full financial accountability, argue Amelia Cookson and Andrew Collinge
There is another local government white paper around the corner. Like London buses, after a period of relative quiet they seem to be arriving thick and fast. But is the arrival of the latest to be any more eagerly expected than the last? It should be, given that the time for slotting the last piece of the double devolution jigsaw into place must now surely be very much upon us.
It is easy to forget that we have already been on a considerable journey; with the white papers the milestones along the way. Some markers might be part obscured among other roadside furniture, but there is a path that can be traced, and it is all about accountability and partnership. Empowerment is the label most frequently attached to the forthcoming white paper, but empowerment and accountability go hand in hand, and accountability for local government has been all about partnership.
The local partnership story starts with John Prescott's white paper Modern local government: in touch with the people, which captured the growing trend of councils leading partnership groups and developing community planning. Although the paper did not feature in the legislation that followed, it focused the trend and drew in the councils that had not been part of the ground-breaking first wave. Local Strategic Partnerships and community strategies went on to become part of the local government landscape.
Let's be honest. Partnership began in talking shops. But this is no bad thing. Dialogue has a value in itself. In the end, perceived inertia led to criticism, but creating dialogue around local co-ordination and priorities was a leap forward. We can become complacent about partnership working, but reflect on this: when a director for the city council in Montreal, Canada, was asked about working with health, the response was 'we don't'. The extent of their dialogue was the council being given sight of plans for new health centres. In the collaborative world we have here, such a chasm in communication seems unthinkable.
And partnerships have evolved. In the last white paper, Strong and prosperous communities, then local government secretary Ruth Kelly pinned down the point of evolution. Realising the limits of dialogue, the partnership landscape had become focused on improving services through performance reporting. The introduction of Local Area Agreements at breakneck speed was an entirely voluntary process to begin with, and the rapidity with which partnerships scrambled to climb on board was indicative that the time for reporting had come. The white paper and the legislation that followed put LAAs on a statutory footing and committed a wide range of public agencies to participate in the reporting process.
Within the evolution of partnerships, there has also been an evolution of accountability, again starting from dialogue. Building personal relationships and sitting down with peers is a form of accountability, and probably the kind most likely to shape the behaviour of individuals. Where these individuals are in positions of authority, it also has an impact on the culture of the organisations they represent. This was the milestone of the first white paper.
Onwards to the next milestone: accountability through reporting. The second white paper was about a tougher, more prescriptive kind of accountability. Dialogue can get you a long way, but it depends to a significant extent on goodwill. When decisions become more difficult, or relationships difficult to maintain, having agreed outcomes in writing and processes to monitor those outcomes provides a more dependable form of accountability.
But it does not end there. In all organisations, and especially those spending the public's pound, the hardest edge of accountability is finance. Reporting shapes how partners around the table focus their resources. But at the end of reckoning, only the person who holds the purse strings can stand up to the public and be held accountable for those resources being committed in the first place.
So here is the end point in the partnership journey, and the potential prize for the third white paper: real financial accountability. But if we track back to white papers one and two, both milestones were only markers in a transition that councils had begun themselves. Is the transition to local financial accountability too nascent to be reflected in a white paper?
It was always the intention that Local Area Agreements would be accompanied by pooled funding, but here reality has fallen short of the vision. Money is always a touchy subject, but the following example is typical. An LSP was committed to pooling funding some years ago, but still finds itself without progress. The announcements of changes to LAAs have made partners reluctant to progress before the new landscape is clear. The LSP structure has been expanded to include a sub-structure for finance, which is a step in the right direction and shows that partners are willing to consider their options, but pooling remains an ambition for the future.
The next steps are clear. Local government and its partners need to begin making tracks towards full financial accountability. Pooling is a start, but if the goal is double devolution – empowering the people, not the people who serve them – moving money within partnerships will never be the solution. The people need to know where the buck stops, and how to show their wrath when decisions fail. The only suitable means we have is that timeless mechanism, the ballot box. Accountability has to sit with the council.
And to preserve the effectiveness of what we have in place, the strength of relationships and the structures for partnership, the sensible means to deliver financial accountability is through commissioning. Commissioning would deliver instant pooling, a single elected body to stand up and be counted for spending, and the right mechanism to support real opportunities for the public to have influence on local strategic decision making, regardless of the issue of their concern. For public servants, tired of constant change, commissioning could be delivered without changing operational or management structures.
That vision could be spelled out in the white paper today. Or councils could feel this path themselves, and a future paper will ink in the changes.
In any case, we are throwing down the gauntlet to central government. On May 15, Communities and Local Government Minister Hazel Blears will be previewing the white paper at the Local Government Information Unit's conference, 'Power to the people: will the white paper deliver?' Blears is an empowerment champion. The conference will draw together the advocates for harder-edged accountability, structural change and empowerment, as well as their opponents.
Our view is that accountability and empowerment go hand in hand. Now is the chance to have that debate, and see where the future of accountability really lies.
Amelia Cookson is head of the centre for service transformation and Andrew Collinge is director of policy and public affairs at the Local Government Information Unit. The LGIU's conference will be held in London on May 15.
PFmay2008
