Expert Panel: Structural reform and local government

Manchester is set to become the first region to have devolved responsibility for its local NHS services with an elected mayor eventually becoming accountable for health. There remains little detail on devolution plans for other regions but Room151 commentators have been considering the issue of structural reform of local government.

Reports

Frank Wilson
I’m not sure that the devolution discussions amount to restructuring. Let’s face it, the combined authorities are service specific, bringing together infrastructure projects that cross current democratic boundaries whilst leaving the core democratic structures in place.

Clearly they push some buttons to deliver significant funding boosts and if that helps deliver then great.

Do funding cuts mean restructuring is inevitable? Not sure. It means that authorities need to think outside the box to deliver further efficiencies by working with like-minded partners.

The bigger is better brigade continue to argue that restructuring will deliver efficiencies, and maybe it could reduce costs, but what of the loss of local democratic choice?

We all argue that council tax capping (sorry referendum criteria) is undemocratic but equally undemocratic is to standardise service across areas that would prefer to keep local choice.

Trevor Castledine
Local knowledge means that some services are better delivered locally, whilst economies of scale make national delivery of other services a better approach.

The question has always been where to draw the line between the two, and what degree of subsidy between wealthy and poor (or between places where services are cheap to deliver and where they are expensive) is appropriate.

This decision has been an idealogical one, tempered by the national politicians’ need to buy votes from year to year and what they feel that they can get away with. All Westminster parties must now acknowledge that there are too many wasteful layers of government and that reform is absolutely necessary. County and metropolitan lines are already drawn, and I think that these existing boundaries (with the inevitable tweaks that politicians just can’t help making) will be the focus of reducing layers of government while increasing authority and also accountability of regional governments.

Stephen Fitzgerald
Structural reform is inevitable. Increasingly local authorities are thrashing around trying to come up with new approaches that will ensure continued service provision against a background of swinging cuts in resources.

In a sense local government, by its very success, has been hammering a stake into its own heart. Cuts have consistently been delivered, financial sustainability is maintained and service performance appears to improve.

Central government resources are directed elsewhere sometimes to support a status quo which requires the scrutiny of reform.

So what does local government do as it stares into the abyss? For me the future must be about market share. Local authorities should become directly responsible for all local services in their areas including health, police and fire. The financial discipline that has been applied to local government should be applied to all local services.

This would achieve democratic accountability for all services and could involve communities in decision making across the range of services. Local government would build its market share and would be repositioned at the centre of local community life.

Let’s hope our politicians have the vision to make this a reality.