The Localism Bill and the government’s health and education reforms are intended to put some policy flesh on the bones of ministers’ localism and Big Society rhetoric. And while all three are significant in their own way, there is still a lack of consensus and understanding on what localism actually means for local government. Most of us get the gist of it (or think we do). But how this will translate into concrete changes to way councils do business, or their fundamental role in delivering local public services, is less clear.
Deloitte has interviewed local authority chief executives in England to gauge the response to central government intent on localism. In the report that we publish today, A little local difficulty: the challenges of making localism work, what is clear from the evidence is that almost everyone involved in public services supports localism, decentralisation and the Big Society in principle. The problem is that not everybody agrees what role councils will play in the future delivery of services.
Even chief executives who can articulate what localism means for their businesses, also acknowledge that a lack of granularity from central government and a fast moving policy environment makes it difficult for them to act on their analysis. ‘That’s a function of localism,’ one might say. ‘Different interpretations and different responses lead to improved outcomes.'
But hang on: a patchwork of service outputs is one thing. A lack of clear direction on inputs is completely different. The majority of local authorities interviewed have no strategic plan to respond to localism. They are in effect, holding their breath.
This is not a reflection on their corporate responsiveness – a fundamental set of tensions between government tiers and ambiguities that overlay wider concerns around budget reductions make business planning extremely difficult at present. Clear policy frameworks are being formulated across health, planning and education, but even with explicit policy direction and strong ministerial steer, uncertainty remains.
Whichever interpretation of localism prevails, it is clear that local authorities in England will play a central role in its execution over the next five years. But the Deloitte report suggests that councils in England are not confronting the real challenges. For example, we can expect significant change to local authority business models in response to localism, as well as uncertainty around budgeting, future revenue and capabilities.
However gloriously unstructured local public services will be in future, a need to understand these challenges at a granular level, including how capability requirements will evolve, remains very much a priority.
Another elephant in the room is the variance in community capability and engagement in public service delivery. Again, whatever flavour of localism emerges, councils will need to assess which parts of the community have the potential – that is the capacity, capability and inclination, to get involved in either direct delivery or oversight of key business areas.
They will also need to sell the idea of greater community independence and involvement. After all, why should communities get involved? What is in it for them? The answers to those questions do exist, but they need to be spelt out and communicated in a local context.
A further challenge will be to understand what is possible on a systemic, not just ad hoc or experimental, level. Everyone in local government you talk to has anecdotes about successful community organisations getting involved, making a difference, even leading work on a service. But systemically? In lieu of a large complex council service that demands money, skills and proper business controls? That’s a knottier question.
Linked to this challenge are a whole set of issues around accountability and governance. At present, there is patchy evidence around the best accountability and governance mechanisms for community-led delivery models. Before localism can be implemented, councils need to develop new frameworks for performance assessment and accountability that meet the specific requirements of a local service and test these models against user experiences.
So yes, localism has the potential to revolutionise the way local government is run, yes it could improve local empowerment and public services dramatically, and yes, at its root it is fundamentally a good thing that most people support. But the onus is now on local government to confront a series of complex challenges within their businesses to prepare for localism in whatever form it eventually takes. They also need to tackle some key underlying tensions at the interface between central and local government, which may be the real battleground for wresting control of public services from the state.
Ultimately it will be down to high quality leadership at both central and local government levels to provide the clarity and momentum to drive through change.
Mark Lawrie is head of local and regional government at Deloitte
