More local powers and control is clearly part of the future for local government. But it should be accompanied by a better understanding of what councils are for.
As councils grapple with cuts in funding, the near-universal default answer to the problems they face is localism. The idea has much to commend it – councils are close to the communities they serve, and can respond faster to citizen demands than Whitehall can.
Yet localist theory needs stress testing, to ensure it can withstand the exacting conditions councils face. Getting localism right means addressing five key points.
Firstly, there needs to be an acknowledgement of the impact of cuts. Councils have borne a disproportionate share of the pain of deficit reduction. On the whole they have done well, reorganising back office, collaborating, and engaging in interagency working to secure more for less. But deeper cuts are expected in the next Parliament, which may leave many councils in dire straits. This will require more than merely localism to address.
Secondly, there is the issue of capacity. Many local leaders want radical devolution, with the model of Manchester, where a host of local service will be transferred to a Greater Manchester mayor and the city’s combined authority, held up as an example.
Manchester has the necessary institutional ‘heft’ for this, but it is questionable whether all councils, including many covering less clearly definable ‘places’ than Manchester, possess the requisite infrastructure. Devolution must be accompanied by considerable transfer of skills and capacity.
Ensuring the right level for control of services is linked to this. Where capacity or the ‘identity’ of a place make devolution challenging, transferring service responsibility to another agency, even a national body, might make operational and financial sense.
This does not necessarily mean an end to local accountability, as national delivery bodies can develop local governance structures. Indeed, the assumption that local council control of a service guarantees local accountability is misleading. Turnout in local elections is poor, undermining accountability. Localists argue that transferring more services to local authorities would animate voters. But many services already administered by local councils – aspects of social care, for example – have little bearing on local election outcomes, but are hugely important to users. Giving councils service control is not the same as giving people control.
Councils must also reflect their communities. They have evolved over time, and although their identities may relate to recognisable communities, often they do not. Authorities may have strange names and curious boundaries, and they are geographically static. People, however, are not easily bounded. In the digital age, they are especially mobile, forming fluid communities that relate imperfectly to the geographical basis of UK governance, and localism must reflect this.
Coherence is also key. Localism is a ‘let many flowers bloom’ philosophy, and indeed places are different. But an examination of local responses to the challenges of austerity will reveal both rational (and accountable) variations and unaccountable, preventable incoherence. This is understandable. We lack a shared understanding of local government’s proper scope and responsibilities, and even the well informed would struggle to define their council’s remit.
Recent experimentation and innovation in local governance and delivery are welcome, but have brought their own uncertainties. There is no unanimity about councils’ proper structure and purpose, and what they are best suited for and what they are ill-adapted to deliver.
In a report published today, the Management Consultancies Association recommends a stakeholder conference, early in the next Parliament, to examine what councils are and what they should do, and what works best from the perspective of citizens. The conference would develop common principles against which the validity of Manchester-style devolution proposals, as well as different approaches (shared services, regionalisation or national organisation) could be assessed. And since the real test of localism is what benefits citizens, the Local Government: Time for Reinvention report says this could also establish where communities are better placed to deliver services themselves.
Localism remains the best answer to local government’s current challenges. But it should be based on a better understanding of what councils are for. In an era of resource scarcity, providing that clarity and definition is now urgent.
Paul Connolly is director of the MCA Think Tank. The new MCA Think Tank report, Local Government – Time for Reinvention is based work with councils across the country.
