The Conservative Party has unveiled its plans for local government in its Control shift Green Paper. Heather Jameson reports
As the local government Green Paper emerged from Conservative Central Office this week – after months of delays – there was remarkably little criticism.
As one would expect, it was broadly welcomed by Tories themselves, but there was little opposition elsewhere to what is likely to be the next government’s policy, in less than 18 months’ time.
True, many of the plans had already seeped into shadow cabinet speeches and policy over the past 12 months – leaving little left to discover.
And more still had been flagged up to county leaders last autumn – and exclusively revealed in The MJ. But, somehow, before it was revealed there was still the hope, now dashed, that it might have held a radical new vision for the future of local government.
The broad overview of the Green Paper – entitled Control shift – put forward by the Tory spin machine is that the party wants to devolve powers down to councils, and to citizens – to call a halt to centralisation and create a more trusting and grown-up relationship between central and local government.
It is a startlingly familiar cry – from the current Labour Government as well. It seems the two main political parties are desperately trying to out-localist each other.
A power of general competence will beef-up the Labour policy of the power of wellbeing. It goes one step further in allowing councils to do more for local people. It has been universally welcomed, despite the fact that the wellbeing power is already criticised for being under-utilised.
One vocal critic of the plans is, unsurprisingly, local government minister, John Healey. He warned councils this week that, following Tory commitments to fund education and health, councils were likely to face a massive drop in grant – £240m – from day one of a Tory Government.
However, it is hard to see how there would be much more money floating round if Labour retained control.
Mr Healey tells The MJ: ‘We have waited a year for this, and I don’t think even the most passionate Tories will think it was worth the wait.’
He claims there was a ‘big gap between the sales pitch and the reality’ of the Green Paper, with little substance to back up the localist headlines.
Mr Healey cites proposals to give people the power to choose mayors. He says: ‘Cities already have the power to choose mayors – but this document is silent on the powers they will have.
‘Who leads the city is far less important that what powers they have.’
Chief executive of the LGIU, Andy Sawford, describes the Green Paper as ‘nothing really radical’.
He says: ‘For a “fundamental shift”, we would have to end the situation where education and health are run from Whitehall – and the police are run from the Home Office’
He also denies that scrapping CAA would be a good thing for local government – although it might be broadly welcomed by the sector. Mr Sawford cautions that there will still need to be some sort of inspection.
Despite losing CAA, the Audit Commission will take over other responsibilities. Under the Green Paper plans, the commission would give an independent view on the local government finance settlement to Parliament each year.
As yet, the commission has not responded to the changes it would face – issuing a statement instead claiming it would consider the position. However, speaking at the launch of the latest CAA framework before the Tory policy was finally revealed, Audit Commission chief executive, Steve Bundred, said he was convinced the party would be won over to CAA after it was up and running.
Perks and pay-offs
The Conservatives, and, in particular, former shadow communities secretary, Eric Pickles, have been vocal of late on the issue of chief executive salaries. They have called for more transparency on pay, pensions, perks and pay-offs – a call also recently made by chief executives’ body, SOLACE.
They have also said they will ‘produce guidance’ on drafting contracts for senior local government officers – in an bid to avoid severance packages for ‘failed’ directors.
SOLACE chair, Derek Myers, describes the guidance as ‘unnecessary’ and ‘out of character with the rest of the document’. Overall, he welcomes the shift away from micro-management and towards decentralisation
But Mr Myers cautions: ‘All politicians must avoid the danger of localising in opposition while centralising in power, so we look forward to seeing more detail on how these ideas would be operationalised.’
Finance
Control shift perhaps owes more of its financial policies to the Labour-commissioned Lyons review than the Government’s policies do. The party plans to use financial incentives to encourage economic development. LABGI – which is described as too bureaucratic – will be replaced by the Business Increase Bonus, and councils will be entitled to keep extra growth in business rates for six years.
Similarly, additional council tax created by new housing will be retained without penalty for six years
Other finance measures
l an end to capping in favour of referendums
l phase out ring-fencing
l make it easier for councils to issue bonds
l the Audit Commission to review the local government finance settlement
l councils will have the ability to contract with central government for a council tax freeze
Democracy
The overarching theme of the paper is to bring democracy down to a local level, but there are also plenty of specific issues on democracy.
The Conservatives have promised there will be no forced reorganisations – and have said they will call a halt to the current round of reorganisation, if it is not too far ahead, as was exclusively revealed in The MJ (see page 3, 12 February).
Perhaps more surprisingly, Boris Johnson’s success as Tory mayor of London has changed the party’s policies, and it will now call for mayors for:
l Birmingham
l Leeds
l Sheffield
l Bradford
l Manchester
l Liverpool
l Wakefield
l Coventry
l Leicester
l Nottingham
l Newcastle upon Tyne.
Directly-elected police commissioners – similar to the direct policing representatives which have just been dropped by Labour – have also been mooted. The Government’s U-turn was largely due to the plans being met by opposition from all sides, including local government and the police.
Will these plans differ enough to have more support?
In a move which has stumped many local government commentators, the party has also offered legislation to allow citizens to choose what political structure they wish their council to adopt. This could mean ‘a return to the committee system, if they wish’, according to the paper.
Other democracy measures
l the abolition of the Standards Board
l give citizens the power to instigate referendums
l introduce directly-elected police commissioners
l devolving as much funding to ward level as possible
Regardless of which party is in power now, or in the near future, there are two things we may safely assume. First, elections are never going to be won or lost on a party’s plans for local government.
Second – and probably more crucially – whatever the political hue of the next government, there will be less cash in the grant pot for councils for the foreseeable future.
As one would expect, it was broadly welcomed by Tories themselves, but there was little opposition elsewhere to what is likely to be the next government’s policy, in less than 18 months’ time.
True, many of the plans had already seeped into shadow cabinet speeches and policy over the past 12 months – leaving little left to discover.
And more still had been flagged up to county leaders last autumn – and exclusively revealed in The MJ. But, somehow, before it was revealed there was still the hope, now dashed, that it might have held a radical new vision for the future of local government.
The broad overview of the Green Paper – entitled Control shift – put forward by the Tory spin machine is that the party wants to devolve powers down to councils, and to citizens – to call a halt to centralisation and create a more trusting and grown-up relationship between central and local government.
It is a startlingly familiar cry – from the current Labour Government as well. It seems the two main political parties are desperately trying to out-localist each other.
A power of general competence will beef-up the Labour policy of the power of wellbeing. It goes one step further in allowing councils to do more for local people. It has been universally welcomed, despite the fact that the wellbeing power is already criticised for being under-utilised.
One vocal critic of the plans is, unsurprisingly, local government minister, John Healey. He warned councils this week that, following Tory commitments to fund education and health, councils were likely to face a massive drop in grant – £240m – from day one of a Tory Government.
However, it is hard to see how there would be much more money floating round if Labour retained control.
Mr Healey tells The MJ: ‘We have waited a year for this, and I don’t think even the most passionate Tories will think it was worth the wait.’
He claims there was a ‘big gap between the sales pitch and the reality’ of the Green Paper, with little substance to back up the localist headlines.
Mr Healey cites proposals to give people the power to choose mayors. He says: ‘Cities already have the power to choose mayors – but this document is silent on the powers they will have.
‘Who leads the city is far less important that what powers they have.’
Chief executive of the LGIU, Andy Sawford, describes the Green Paper as ‘nothing really radical’.
He says: ‘For a “fundamental shift”, we would have to end the situation where education and health are run from Whitehall – and the police are run from the Home Office’
He also denies that scrapping CAA would be a good thing for local government – although it might be broadly welcomed by the sector. Mr Sawford cautions that there will still need to be some sort of inspection.
Despite losing CAA, the Audit Commission will take over other responsibilities. Under the Green Paper plans, the commission would give an independent view on the local government finance settlement to Parliament each year.
As yet, the commission has not responded to the changes it would face – issuing a statement instead claiming it would consider the position. However, speaking at the launch of the latest CAA framework before the Tory policy was finally revealed, Audit Commission chief executive, Steve Bundred, said he was convinced the party would be won over to CAA after it was up and running.
Perks and pay-offs
The Conservatives, and, in particular, former shadow communities secretary, Eric Pickles, have been vocal of late on the issue of chief executive salaries. They have called for more transparency on pay, pensions, perks and pay-offs – a call also recently made by chief executives’ body, SOLACE.
They have also said they will ‘produce guidance’ on drafting contracts for senior local government officers – in an bid to avoid severance packages for ‘failed’ directors.
SOLACE chair, Derek Myers, describes the guidance as ‘unnecessary’ and ‘out of character with the rest of the document’. Overall, he welcomes the shift away from micro-management and towards decentralisation
But Mr Myers cautions: ‘All politicians must avoid the danger of localising in opposition while centralising in power, so we look forward to seeing more detail on how these ideas would be operationalised.’
Finance
Control shift perhaps owes more of its financial policies to the Labour-commissioned Lyons review than the Government’s policies do. The party plans to use financial incentives to encourage economic development. LABGI – which is described as too bureaucratic – will be replaced by the Business Increase Bonus, and councils will be entitled to keep extra growth in business rates for six years.
Similarly, additional council tax created by new housing will be retained without penalty for six years
Other finance measures
l an end to capping in favour of referendums
l phase out ring-fencing
l make it easier for councils to issue bonds
l the Audit Commission to review the local government finance settlement
l councils will have the ability to contract with central government for a council tax freeze
Democracy
The overarching theme of the paper is to bring democracy down to a local level, but there are also plenty of specific issues on democracy.
The Conservatives have promised there will be no forced reorganisations – and have said they will call a halt to the current round of reorganisation, if it is not too far ahead, as was exclusively revealed in The MJ (see page 3, 12 February).
Perhaps more surprisingly, Boris Johnson’s success as Tory mayor of London has changed the party’s policies, and it will now call for mayors for:
l Birmingham
l Leeds
l Sheffield
l Bradford
l Manchester
l Liverpool
l Wakefield
l Coventry
l Leicester
l Nottingham
l Newcastle upon Tyne.
Directly-elected police commissioners – similar to the direct policing representatives which have just been dropped by Labour – have also been mooted. The Government’s U-turn was largely due to the plans being met by opposition from all sides, including local government and the police.
Will these plans differ enough to have more support?
In a move which has stumped many local government commentators, the party has also offered legislation to allow citizens to choose what political structure they wish their council to adopt. This could mean ‘a return to the committee system, if they wish’, according to the paper.
Other democracy measures
l the abolition of the Standards Board
l give citizens the power to instigate referendums
l introduce directly-elected police commissioners
l devolving as much funding to ward level as possible
Regardless of which party is in power now, or in the near future, there are two things we may safely assume. First, elections are never going to be won or lost on a party’s plans for local government.
Second – and probably more crucially – whatever the political hue of the next government, there will be less cash in the grant pot for councils for the foreseeable future.
