When will ministers and the media cease pretending that local authorities can absorb over 25% cuts in their grants over the next three to four years (and in many cases, the degree of funding reductions is considerably greater than 25%) and avoid cuts in services? When will they cease to opine that if only local authorities were not paying their senior officers such high salaries there would be money to avoid service cuts? What nonsense!
How many libraries would even the highest local government salary fund? Ministers have every right to defend their policy decision to make significant and front-loaded cuts in central government financial support to local authorities – a political act for which they are, of course, accountable. However, they are also accountable for the consequences of this decision and needless to say, this is where the landscape becomes much murkier and confusing.
Most decisions on where and how an individual authority spends its monies, how it distributes expenditure between services and client groups and how it cuts to meet the financial targets imposed by central government - are matters for local councillors and elected mayors. However, the fact that cuts are required in the first place and that central government is cutting financial support to local authorities overall is very much a ministerial responsibility.
What irony that these same ministers are promoting 'localism' and greater freedoms for local authorities to make their own choices on behalf of local communities. That is, when they are not attempting to micro-manage refuge collection or street parties or remuneration policies! What irony that the government speaks about 'all in this together' and then cuts grants to those areas with the greatest social and economic needs the most. What irony that these same ministers have decided to abolish one of the few bodies (namely the Audit Commission) that independently and professionally has the capacity and credibility to both offer verified benchmark data to enable comparisons of performance and cost between local authorities, and where appropriate, to challenge poor management and under-performance.
Ministers are undoubtedly right when they claim that local authorities can make savings by entering into shared service arrangements with other authorities, public agencies and the private sector. Indeed, many authorities – and I fully accept not enough as yet– already have or are actively setting up such arrangements. However, these are rightly matters for local decision-making. It is also a fact that such arrangements do not always lead to massive savings. And as with some other measures, including major service re-design, outsourcing and setting up new social enterprises, there are long lead-in times and often transitional/set up costs.
So, if not already currently well in train, there will be few if any savings in 2011/12. Yet cuts in total expenditure are required to be made in this coming financial year and without large balances to raid or borrow from, these cuts cannot be avoided. Local authorities of all political persuasions are forced to make cuts. Some are taking advantage to the political cover from Whitehall to make more cuts than the grant settlement requires and some have taken legitimate local political decisions to re-profile their expenditure. It is also worth noting that the government has compounded the challenge for local authorities by introducing ‘in year’ cuts in 2010/11 which had not be been foreseen prior to the June Emergency Budget and frontloading the cuts in 2011/12.
On top of that, other policies and financial pressures in other public sector agencies such as the NHS, police, welfare and criminal justice along with increased unemployment will add to local authority financial pressures. Consequently, the 'Big Society' flagship government policy is at risk of being severely undermined by cutbacks in local authority funding, both contractual and grant based, to individual and infrastructure organisations. And be under no illusions - important as it is, volunteering will be no full substitute for funding; and the community and voluntary sector is more than volunteers.
One can argue about the government’s macro-economic strategy and propose alternatives but the fact is that the government has decided to make large and rapid cuts in expenditure and to disproportionately hit local authorities. Now whilst local government has a duty to be efficient and effectively use scarce public resources, it should not become the scapegoat for any government’s policy impact. And nor should it be the butt of disingenuous political and media discourse – which is what there has been far too much of in recent weeks. Constant political barbs from Whitehall which are then echoed by parts of the media do nothing to build confidence in the political system and democratic representation. These attacks are unfair, unnecessary and unhelpful.
The government wants a smaller state and this includes local government. Fine – so let there be an honest and open debate, and recognition from Whitehall that this means cuts to local services, including popular and important ones. For its part, local government should have foreseen some cuts – and many did - and adopted strategies to respond, But how could they have foreseen the nature and magnitude of the attack upon them.
Some authorities are clearly better placed than others to do this. They need to rise above the insults and attacks and robustly defend local communities where making hard spending choices will too often result not in the best but in the least worst outcome for individuals and communities.
John Tizard is director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships
