13 February 2009
The Local Government Association has been under fire for everything from Icelandic investments to gritting the icy roads, all while in a state of turmoil after internal battles. Tony Travers analyses the disparate interests that make it hard to present a united front
This winter has been a hard one. The economy has plunged into deep recession. The weather has been the coldest for years. Industrial and social unrest has, possibly, started.
For the Local Government Association, all these difficulties come on top of a dire period when, among other things, chief executive Paul Coen was pushed out after disagreements with senior members. With luck, his departure will prove to be the nadir of the LGA’s troubles. Or perhaps not, as even the collapse of transport caused by the recent snow was blamed on councils, requiring the association’s environment chair to issue a statement saying local government was being used as a ‘scapegoat’ for the failures of others.
Recent events have not been kind to the LGA, as local government’s voice and representative. An unexpected change of political leader last autumn was followed by the failure of the Icelandic banks. The LGA found itself agreeing to a package of measures with the Department for Communities and Local Government. Whitehall conceded very little, while local authorities had to take the full financial hit and suffer damage to their reputation. A number of councils were lined up for ‘help’. The LGA’s incapacity to articulate a defence of its members was widely criticised within local government. Though, in fairness, the near collapse of the UK banking system at the time had spooked the entire political class. No-one really knew what to do.
Next, the Baby P scandal hit the headlines. The London Borough of Haringey’s leadership and children’s services were subjected to massive attacks from the press and broadcasters. The LGA appeared unable to defend either Haringey or, indeed, local government as a whole. Once again, it would only be fair to point out that the firestorm around Haringey was intense and dangerous. Nevertheless, it was left to local head teachers to speak up for the borough and its officers.
Subsequently, the government rejected Coen’s proposals for a complex reorganisation of LGA bodies such as the Improvement and Development Agency.
Since the New Year, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has accused councils of failing to provide enough services for women who have experienced violence, a charge the LGA robustly denied.
Subsequently, the Coen affair was both damaging and damagingly handled. At first, the chief executive was ‘suspended’, then it appeared he had resigned. Or not. Gradually it became clear that the relationship between the association and its newish chief executive was over. He has been replaced by John Ransford, the previous deputy chief executive, in an attempt to regain equilibrium within the organisation.
Most recently, transport chaos and closed schools were blamed on councils failing to provide sufficient gritting during the heavy snow at the beginning of the month. Ransford was out on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme next morning to put the record straight. There is early evidence that things are improving at Local Government House.
It is worth delving back into history to remember how the LGA came into being. In the days before it was created in 1997, there were four local government associations, one each for the county councils, metropolitan authorities, districts and London boroughs. Oddly, London councils were also members of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, though the AMA’s leadership was determinedly northern. Scotland had its own organisation – the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Wales was to some degree linked to the English associations.
These bodies generally operated out of stucco-fronted premises close to Whitehall. The Association of County Councils occupied a gloomy pile in Eaton Square, while the AMA nestled half a mile away in Old Queen Street. The (poorer) Association of District Councils eventually had to move to a more modest bolt hole near Vincent Square. Efforts were made to co-ordinate their activities, but they existed, primarily, to lobby for ‘county’ or ‘district’ or ‘metropolitan’ or ‘London’ interests.
The creation of the LGA was, therefore, a logistical and political challenge. An entirely new organisation had to be formed, without any suggestion that it was dominated by any of the old ones. Every aspect of it needed to be able to operate with every kind of council. It was multi-party and had to respect Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent interests. New premises were found in the old Labour Party headquarters in Smith Square. ‘Transport House’ became Local Government House. The task that faced the first chief executive, Brian Briscoe, was immense.
Revisiting the background to the LGA is important because it hints at the internal stresses and strains that have been a feature of the organisation since it was created. It is a club – a voluntary membership organisation. It is also a non-political political body in a country where politics is highly adversarial. Moreover, it represents councils from every part of England in a top-down governmental system where each area is competing with all others for a slice of the Exchequer pie. It is hard to think of a more difficult challenge.
The political figureheads and senior officers of the association have been successful in being ‘non-political’ in their representations. Sir Jeremy Beecham, the late Lord (Sandy) Bruce-Lockhart, Sir Simon Milton and Margaret Eaton have managed to embody local government of all parties in dealings with the centre. But this need to be politically sensitive to the various parties represented within the LGA puts the organisation at a disadvantage when dealing with the government. Ministers need only represent the agreed view of the Cabinet. Imagine if local government minister John Healey, in his dealings with councils, had to put forward the views of a coalition of Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Independent colleagues. His job would be rendered virtually impossible. Yet LGA leaders and officers must do this all the time.
One of the consequences of the LGA’s complex make-up has been the evolution of groups representing the various different interests of councils within geographical areas or of particular types. The Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities represents the former metropolitan authorities and a number of larger unitaries. The County Councils Network, as its name suggests, maintains a lobby for the shires and Sparse (the Sparsity Partnership for Authorities Delivering Rural Services) represents the most rural areas. There are others for councils with large ethnic minority populations, aviation interests and coasts. Public Transport Authorities have their own group. London boroughs are represented by London Councils, a high-profile body with its own offices and officials.
Groups of this kind act as a ‘safety valve’ for the pressures that build up about particular interests. Sigoma, for example, points out on its website that ‘over their school life, pupils in Sigoma areas have roughly a teacher’s worth of contact time less than pupils in London’. By implication, the non-London urban councils believe their pupils are unfairly treated.
On the other hand, London Councils states: ‘In 2006/07, London schools and councils missed out on more than £180m of grant funding to cover the extra costs of staff salaries in the capital.’ So, in London Councils’ view, the capital’s schools need more. The groups representing rural interests would make an equally strong case that much of local government and schools’ funding over-represents ‘urban’ needs.
The activities of these special interest groups and bodies show up the difficulties the LGA faces in lobbying the government on many issues. Since it is almost always not possible for LGA negotiators to argue for changes that would lead to a redistribution from one class of councils to another, it is possible only to make a case that all authorities could support. In discussing finance, the LGA can argue for more (or, presumably, less) central support, but it cannot take sides on distributional issues.
But even where there might be thought to be a common interest for all councils, the LGA is likely to find itself hamstrung by its political make-up. After 12 years of a Labour government, the LGA’s membership is heavily weighted towards the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. If a ‘Con-LD’ majority held sway, it would doubtless take a harder line with the government over many issues than an all-party collective can. The same would be true, in reverse, if there were a Conservative government and Labour-Liberal Democrat domination of local government. Sir Jeremy Beecham, after all, is not only an LGA grandee but also a leading member of the Labour Party at national level. Similarly, Margaret Eaton is a leading national Tory.
Life is made no easier by the fact that the government believes itself to have embarked on a major programme of handing powers and influence downwards to councils. Most commentators find it hard to see New Labour’s period in office in this way, but ministers from the prime minister downwards say they have made local government funding less centrally directed and that they have given councils additional powers to drive local economic development. To argue with this line would be to dispute the interpretation of decisions and the meaning of words. The LGA faces a different world view within the core of central government.
Some commentators would question the need for a ‘national’ body to represent local authorities. Councils are, by their very nature, dispersed and decentralised. If local government is to put the case for difference and diversity, how can a single organisation lobby effectively for all those different interests? In reality, the highly centralised nature of England/Britain leaves councils with little option but to ‘play the game’ and have a voice in Westminster and Whitehall. So much legislation, regulation and policy pours out of central government that it would be naïve of local authorities to imagine they could separately represent themselves. Anyway, councils need a body that can deal on equal terms with ministers and civil servants.
Achieving parity of esteem with permanent secretaries and secretaries of state is not as easy as it sounds. However much they protest to the contrary, the elite who operate at the centre of British government have long thought themselves cleverer and more sophisticated than those who toil in municipalities. Despite all the lost data files, botched defence procurement projects, failed computer systems, regulatory failures and other errors visited upon us by central government, the centre still thinks it knows best. This remains true despite the appointment of many ex-council chief executives to senior positions within national government and its agencies.
More awkwardly, local government has responsibility for many of the most difficult and controversial public services. Child protection, antisocial behaviour, care for elderly people, licensing and planning are among the challenging services provided by local government. Whitehall merely sets policy. Delivery is generally in the hands of councils or quangos. Blame for things that go badly wrong is far more likely to settle in a town hall than in Whitehall.
The LGA must operate within this complex and, frankly, unfair world. It must attempt to reduce the speed of centralisation and, on occasion, to increase local autonomy. Under new management, the association now needs to be bolder in its defence of localism. The government is in desperate need of help in rekindling the economy. There is surely an opportunity to bid for more financial freedoms.
Local taxation is a policy sphere where, following the government’s zero response to Sir Michael Lyons’ local government inquiry, boldness is required. The LGA should also make a positive bid to add local democracy to the NHS, police and other quangoid services. Devolution to Scotland and Wales has not been followed by decentralisation within England. A new start for the association could lead to initiatives for constitutional reform. There are, after all, widely acknowledged weaknesses with the UK’s democratic arrangements.
As winter gives way to spring, there is a need for the LGA to defend councils from attack and to put forward proposals for radical change.
