As he celebrates his 60th birthday this week, Sir Michael Lyons steps away from the daily cares of chairing the BBC Trust to talk to Heather Jameson about the subject still close to his heart – local government
Sir Michael Lyons, chairman of the BBC and former government adviser on local government, has spent the day dealing with some pressing issues for the BBC.
He has written an open letter to licence fee-payers, announcing a review of the services and costs of the corporation. The organisation has been castigated in the Press for the cash it will spend bringing staff to London to cover the Olympics after it moves north. And Tory MPs have said the new BBC director general should not be allowed to earn more than the prime minister. After a while, one starts to wonder if it was worth Sir Michael leaving local government at all.
The issues he deals with are still very much public sector. Exchange ‘taxpayer’ with ‘licence fee-payer’, ‘director general’ with ‘chief executive’, and the issues are much the same – efficiency, value for money, and delivering what the public wants.
The spotlight of spending public money glares just as brightly at the BBC as it did in Birmingham where he was chief executive last.
Sir Michael’s career in local government has been a long and distinguished one (see box, bottom right), culminating in the final report of the Lyons Inquiry. His review, which expanded and extended endlessly from a review of local government finance commissioned in July 2004 to the full and final report on the future of local government, published in March 2007, is the seminal work on the sector in the past decade.
As he reaches his 60th birthday this week, he is philosophical about the subsequent lack of action from the Government. Many of his recommendations were dismissed out of hand at the time of publication, and others quietly put aside to gather dust. More philosophical, indeed, than many in local government who feel the report deserved more action.
But there has been a subtle shift in the sector since the report. The concept of place-shaping has now become ingrained in the psyche of local government. Problems with council tax have never been resolved but have perhaps been overtaken by economic events for the time being.
Since he started at the BBC, he tells The MJ: ‘I haven’t stopped thinking about local government. I still have a foot in both camps.’
What he feels deserves more coverage and attention is the idea that local government – and the public – need to decide what councils should and should not do. What’s more, he is adamant this should differ from one locality to the next.
Sir Michael claims we keep ‘whacking on’ extra roles for local government without considering what should be dropped. At a time when cash is set to be at an all-time low, and expectations at an all-time high, the current system is unsustainable.
He sees the current local government sector ‘preparing for the hard times ahead’, looking for efficiency and shared services. ‘Everyone is looking for transformational change. Personally, I don’t like that phrase. It’s used far too loosely.’
However, it is necessary. The next step, he argues, is to have a conversation with local people about what can and can’t be delivered locally and what people must do for themselves. He talks of ‘managing the expectations’ of citizens and councils considering ‘whether they should pare back what they offer’ and adds: ‘What you come back to is that these issues will differ from one community to another.’
Why not ask people locally what they want, and provide them with it? ‘Affluent communities may boil it down to just the essential services,’ he says. A low cost, low delivery council. Others may want more support and may be willing to pay for it. He uses the examples of Scotland and Wales where more ‘collective provision’ is embedded in the tradition of the areas.
For this to happen, local authorities must ‘involve the user in the design and delivery of the services’. Councils will need to negotiate what they will provide with their public and in turn what the public will provide for themselves, their families and friends and for their communities.
‘It will be really difficult for local government to do this in isolation.
‘We need central government to be much clearer about the set of issues left to local government.’ Politicians also need to dismiss the debate over postcode lotteries and accept that public services will differ from one area to the next depending on the level of services negotiated with the public in that area. Sir Michael cites recycling as an example of where people have taken it upon themselves to be responsible for the issues facing the whole community.
‘There are some rural communities that have taken recycling very seriously. They have a genuine recognition of the benefits of collective action.
‘We need to ask ourselves, what are the things we are willing to do for ourselves, for our neighbours or for our communities? Once we have an appreciation of what people are willing to do we can then look at what the public sector is able to do for them.’
He claims the time is now right to have this debate in local government. During a recession, ‘we tend to pull together’, whereas in better times there is more of a tendency to be more selfish. He adds: ‘Now is the time as a nation we have to rebuild our economy and pay off the debt we have accumulated.’
And the cost of services is at the heart of this debate. Keeping council tax low in the next few years, despite the lack of cash coming in from the government, is essential. ‘It is imperative that we are as interested in how much money we collect from our community as we are in how much we spend.’
There is no easy answer as to how this is done, in a society which struggles to engage individualshe says. ‘It is easier in a small community. In a big community it needs clever communications and techniques to bring this together,’ Sir Michael says.
But what is clear, is that he is convinced this is the way forward for local government.
He has written an open letter to licence fee-payers, announcing a review of the services and costs of the corporation. The organisation has been castigated in the Press for the cash it will spend bringing staff to London to cover the Olympics after it moves north. And Tory MPs have said the new BBC director general should not be allowed to earn more than the prime minister. After a while, one starts to wonder if it was worth Sir Michael leaving local government at all.
The issues he deals with are still very much public sector. Exchange ‘taxpayer’ with ‘licence fee-payer’, ‘director general’ with ‘chief executive’, and the issues are much the same – efficiency, value for money, and delivering what the public wants.
The spotlight of spending public money glares just as brightly at the BBC as it did in Birmingham where he was chief executive last.
Sir Michael’s career in local government has been a long and distinguished one (see box, bottom right), culminating in the final report of the Lyons Inquiry. His review, which expanded and extended endlessly from a review of local government finance commissioned in July 2004 to the full and final report on the future of local government, published in March 2007, is the seminal work on the sector in the past decade.
As he reaches his 60th birthday this week, he is philosophical about the subsequent lack of action from the Government. Many of his recommendations were dismissed out of hand at the time of publication, and others quietly put aside to gather dust. More philosophical, indeed, than many in local government who feel the report deserved more action.
But there has been a subtle shift in the sector since the report. The concept of place-shaping has now become ingrained in the psyche of local government. Problems with council tax have never been resolved but have perhaps been overtaken by economic events for the time being.
Since he started at the BBC, he tells The MJ: ‘I haven’t stopped thinking about local government. I still have a foot in both camps.’
What he feels deserves more coverage and attention is the idea that local government – and the public – need to decide what councils should and should not do. What’s more, he is adamant this should differ from one locality to the next.
Sir Michael claims we keep ‘whacking on’ extra roles for local government without considering what should be dropped. At a time when cash is set to be at an all-time low, and expectations at an all-time high, the current system is unsustainable.
He sees the current local government sector ‘preparing for the hard times ahead’, looking for efficiency and shared services. ‘Everyone is looking for transformational change. Personally, I don’t like that phrase. It’s used far too loosely.’
However, it is necessary. The next step, he argues, is to have a conversation with local people about what can and can’t be delivered locally and what people must do for themselves. He talks of ‘managing the expectations’ of citizens and councils considering ‘whether they should pare back what they offer’ and adds: ‘What you come back to is that these issues will differ from one community to another.’
Why not ask people locally what they want, and provide them with it? ‘Affluent communities may boil it down to just the essential services,’ he says. A low cost, low delivery council. Others may want more support and may be willing to pay for it. He uses the examples of Scotland and Wales where more ‘collective provision’ is embedded in the tradition of the areas.
For this to happen, local authorities must ‘involve the user in the design and delivery of the services’. Councils will need to negotiate what they will provide with their public and in turn what the public will provide for themselves, their families and friends and for their communities.
‘It will be really difficult for local government to do this in isolation.
‘We need central government to be much clearer about the set of issues left to local government.’ Politicians also need to dismiss the debate over postcode lotteries and accept that public services will differ from one area to the next depending on the level of services negotiated with the public in that area. Sir Michael cites recycling as an example of where people have taken it upon themselves to be responsible for the issues facing the whole community.
‘There are some rural communities that have taken recycling very seriously. They have a genuine recognition of the benefits of collective action.
‘We need to ask ourselves, what are the things we are willing to do for ourselves, for our neighbours or for our communities? Once we have an appreciation of what people are willing to do we can then look at what the public sector is able to do for them.’
He claims the time is now right to have this debate in local government. During a recession, ‘we tend to pull together’, whereas in better times there is more of a tendency to be more selfish. He adds: ‘Now is the time as a nation we have to rebuild our economy and pay off the debt we have accumulated.’
And the cost of services is at the heart of this debate. Keeping council tax low in the next few years, despite the lack of cash coming in from the government, is essential. ‘It is imperative that we are as interested in how much money we collect from our community as we are in how much we spend.’
There is no easy answer as to how this is done, in a society which struggles to engage individualshe says. ‘It is easier in a small community. In a big community it needs clever communications and techniques to bring this together,’ Sir Michael says.
But what is clear, is that he is convinced this is the way forward for local government.
