Skills, criminal justice and health, as well as work and pensions, are all areas in which councils should be free to show how they can do things differently and more effectively, says Alex Thomson.
Is the coalition Government serious about empowering local government?
It may seem a strange question, but the fact remains that no matter how many times Eric Pickles reiterates that localism, localism and localism are his top three priorities, there are still many in the sector who say that, at heart, this is really a centralising wolf of a Government barely covered by a localist sheepskin overcoat.
Of course, to echo Mandy Rice-Davies, some of these critics would say that, wouldn't they? But there are still plenty who are driven by neither politics nor grudge who aren't persuaded.
At Localis we don't take this gloomy view. And, more importantly, we believe that the coalition might be on the brink of unveiling a new and potent weapon in convincing the sceptics that putting real power back in the hands of local government really is a key part of the agenda.
What is this weapon? Well, as Greg Clark put it when giving the Inaugural Bruce-Lockhart Lecture in June (published by Localis and available from our website http://www.localis.org.uk ): ‘To follow that logic [of the General Power of Competence], I believe that councils – acting in cooperation with other local agencies – should be given the right to make proposals to the Government as to how things could be done differently.
'This could be over the provision of services or it could be about pooling budgets in return for a set of commitments on outcomes. Councils should, in other words, be able to propose a deal. And rather than requiring everything to conform to a national template, central government should approach each proposal constructively.
Indeed, central government should operate under a clear presumption that, unless it can provide an overwhelming case to the contrary, it will actively facilitate these local initiatives.'
The Government's commitment to this idea of allowing local areas to 'do things differently' was underlined with a reference in the Open Public Services (OPS) White Paper, and more detail on the concept emerged in subsequent interviews, with Greg Clark talking of 'a new constitutional settlement between central government and local government' and making it clear that almost any locally-spent public services budgets were potentially up for grabs, including those still currently managed from Whitehall.
So the big question is what might this mean in practice, and where are the opportunities for local government to seize? It seems to me that there are two avenues to explore here – things that fall within the Department for Communities and Local Government purview, and things that do not - and it is the latter that is the greater prize.
That is not to suggest that there are not many things currently controlled from Eland House that councils would very much like greater autonomy over. One example would be the provision of fire services, particularly in areas where a number of upper tier councils are covered by a single fire service.
Given their role as place shapers, why shouldn't local authorities take the lead in determining the level and type of fire service that they wish to pay for, and then commission that service from any appropriate provider – perhaps an adjoining county?
Another area ripe for reform is council housing. With the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) buy-out moving inexorably towards us, the end of a much reviled centralist system is in sight and local authorities can look forward to finally having responsibility for their own stock.
But there is still plenty the Government could be doing to make this a truly decisive localist push. For starters, the Localism Bill should be shorn of its rather cheeky provisions that allow the Government to extract further payments from councils in years to come.
However, more importantly, the logic of the HRA buyout should be followed through. If local authorities are to take on substantial levels of debt in order to become responsible for the management of their own housing stock, they should be allowed to retain all the benefits of managing that stock.
In a post HRA world, it is hard to see what justification there is for rigging the system to ensure that 75% of all 'Right to Buy' receipts continue to go to the Treasury. Indeed the logic of localism dictates that councils should be allowed to set their own Right to Buy discount rates as they see fit, and use the proceeds of any sales to support housing in any way they wish.
But, welcome as these changes would be, the bigger prize would be to see some form of pilot of a local authority, or a group of local authorities, taking over the provision/control of a service that is not within DCLG's ambit.
Not only would this demonstrate that Eric Pickles and Sir Bob Kerslake were more than holding their own in the vicious internecine warfare that is Whitehall, but it would act as a powerful signifier of the broadened scope of localism. And if, in so doing, it could also serve to change particular ministerial minds currently ill-disposed towards local government, by showing that councils can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, all the better.
So on which policy areas should councils be pointing the spotlight and asking for a chance to prove they can do things better? When talking to local government leaders about this, Department for Work and Pensions is certainly the Whitehall department that is most frequently mentioned, but three other areas, for me at least, are equally interesting – skills, criminal justice and health.
Skills would seem to be a strong candidate, not least because it is one of the areas specifically mentioned in the OPS White Paper where the Government is considering decentralising commissioning power. The current approach to skills funding is segmented into pre-16/16-19/19-24/post-24 which looks a bit disjointed at the best of times.
But given the urgent need to catalyse economic growth, now is surely the time for someone to look at local labour markets and skills provision in the round, and no-one is better placed to take this overview than local authorities, particularly when joined together to represent a functional economic area i.e. in a Local Enterprise Partnership. Offering more locally appropriate pathways to employment and, where possible, higher value added employment is a move that could be paying off for decades to come.
A more localised criminal justice system is an idea given added relevance in the wake of the recent widespread disturbances to public order. Helping the law abiding majority to feel that those committing crimes in their neighbourhood are being dealt with in an appropriate manner is a key element in ensuring ongoing support for democratic government and the rule of law. It could be therefore that the time has come for some local authorities to be given the opportunity to restore a greater degree of local autonomy (within a national framework) to magistrates courts and their sentencing policy, and to offender management.
And, contrary to the likely knee jerk reaction, the results of a more localist criminal justice system are by no means likely to be more penal. Indeed, there are councils who would love the opportunity to dispense with mandatory custodial sentences for some less serious offences, preferring to concentrate instead on 'justice reinvestment' in an attempt to break the reoffending cycle.
But perhaps the biggest opportunity for local government lies in health. The coalition Government made it clear when it unveiled the Health and Social Care Bill that it envisages a far greater role for councils in determining the provision of health services in their localities.
I am yet to meet a local authority leader or chief executive who is not quick to tell you that they could use these new powers to deliver significant improvements to the lives of their residents (particularly if they were able to engineer a shift in resources from acute to primary care and so be able to prevent people becoming ill in the first place).
However, for reasons that are unclear, this universal private backing has not translated into much by way of public support for the government’s proposals. It is time for local government leaders to rediscover their voice and make the case loud and clear for a more localised system of healthcare. Because if this opportunity slips away – and it is far from inconceivable that it might – it won't come back again anytime soon.
