Richard Harbord: Support deficit

It is interesting to look back at the last five years of this Parliament in the context of being a local authority. Arguably local authorities have not been in such a difficult and dark place since before the 1835 reforms.

The question is deciding whether or not authorities have been well served by those in the DCLG, or whether opportunities have been missed to make things better.

The parliament is characterised by the need to make economies with the lion’s share of those savings falling on local authorities. That has been a well discussed result of making the priorities for protection education (to some extent), the National Health Service and overseas aid.

The difficulty is that these priorities do not seem to be set for change going forward. This is a real problem because the future of the health service needs great vision and leadership. Sadly there is a danger that it will swallow all our resources and still fail to give the service that is needed. The increased demand for children and adult services has added to the protection for health services because they too are the responsibility of the health department.

There is no doubt that the DCLG is no longer at the centre of government. Its services are plainly not those accorded the highest priority, or indeed any priority at all. Managers in local government feel they are not supported as well as they might be by the Secretary of State and his team. Events like DCLG being the first department to agree savings requested by the Treasury did not send the correct message about the value of local services.

There have been two major landmarks. However the benefits of both to local authorities has been rendered less effective by timing and the condition of the economy.

The Localism Act 2011 was billed as passing new freedoms and powers to town halls. The most significant element was the inclusion of a general power of competence, but this came in just as resources disappeared. The Act also contained rate discounts and additional powers for communities to influence council policy, and there are good examples of this in action.

The other major change was change to the way authorities were financed from the revenue support grant to retention of business rates. It wasn’t quite what local authorities had in mind when they campaigned for the return of control of business rates from central government. True the level of discontent on the grant system was consistently high but the retention scheme lacks any certainty. Long-term forecasting is difficult and again it is a system implemented at the most difficult time to ensure success.

DCLG has consistently encouraged shared services along with shared management teams and transformation grants have been offered to support these sorts of reforms. What has happened needs a thorough study because savings generated by these initiatives have been variable and the success patchy.

One major omission by DCLG has been the failure to offer any guidance on the structure of local government. Many districts find it difficult to provide comprehensive services and there are gaps among first tier authorities in meeting care and education needs. Whoever is elected in May needs to have a coherent strategy for the future. It may be combined authorities, but here to the stresses and strains of these sorts of arrangements are easily overlooked.

Interestingly the secretary of state has been willing to involve himself in detailed areas. The one concession on re-organisation has been to make it easier to set up town and parish councils. Many doubt this is a great or affordable priority. There have also been a number of detailed personal letters to chief executives urging less bureaucracy around street parties. There has also been a huge and enduring obsession around refuse collection where generally the public is happy with the service provided (I read somewhere recently that only one authority had actually received the relevant grant offered).

So in conclusion, there have been a number of good things. But it all has to be looked at against the national backcloth. Local authorities have undoubtedly felt a lack of support and leadership in maintaining the vital services they provide.