Keep the red tape from total place

 The combination of local election purdah, MPs’ expenses, the Cabinet reshuffle and a general election in 12 months has severely curtailed the appetite among ministers and Whitehall mandarins for launching new initiatives.

Most local government chief executives would silently, maybe even loudly, applaud. They have had their fill of Bills, regulations, duties and codes. And they are doubtless wondering what makes ministers and mandarins believe they know more about a locality than the people who work there, a sentiment recently supported by MPs on the CLG select committee (The MJ, 21 May).

However, the one initiative which does excite ministers and mandarins – and indeed, many council chief executives – is the so-called ‘total place’ agenda.

Although officially unveiled by Sir Michael Bichard at the Budget, with the announcement of the 13 pilots, the idea of joining up budgets locally has been on the circuit considerably longer. Part of its attraction is that it encapsulates the trend set by the LAAs towards breaking down boundaries between central and local government, and prioritising funding around need, not institutions.

It also ticks the efficiency box because, in theory, ‘total place’ should mean more joining up across the local public sector with reduced costs. In particular, not least because it is the only game in town, total place will survive a change of government which means, unusually in the current political climate, it has longevity.

However, the CLG, now and in whatever future form, must be careful not to smother this newborn. Its latest letter to the pilots already smacks of command and control, down to guidance on appointment of programme directors and use of procurement processes to find them. Hasn’t it learned from best value?

If councils, despite LAAs and LSPs, still fail to understand the concept behind total place and need guidance from Whitehall on job appointments, then we have a serious knowledge gap. But I believe councils do understand the direction of travel on this subject.

Time would be better spent by the CLG lobbying its fellow Whitehall departments, especially the Home Office and the Department of Health, without whose co-operation total place will be a non-starter.