Is the Tory “easyCouncil” the right future for Local Government?
In July of 2009 David Cameron told the Local Government Association conference that he would guarantee “more power, but less money” for local government. The speech delivered a realistic message about the financial situation, urging …
In July of 2009 David Cameron told the Local Government Association conference that he would guarantee “more power, but less money” for local government. The speech delivered a realistic message about the financial situation, urging local councils to find “innovative ways of working efficiently”, which – supposedly – they would have the freedom to do courtesy of the empowerment he would ensure.The speech makes for interesting reading. Given that in July he was throwing down the gauntlet calling for business-like innovation to achieve value for money, he would have no doubt been heartened to learn that just a few months later; Conservative councillors in Barnet had picked it up in spectacular fashion. The drive for efficiency in the North London Borough has seen the adoption of a budget airline business-model, dubbed “easyCouncil” by one official. The concept is simple; council tax payers will have to pay extra for services they wish to receive, thus allowing the council to strip-back the cost of maintaining borough-wide provision.
The Conservative administration in Barnet has denied that it is basically pushing for privatisation of local services with its “Future Shape” programme. Yet, the scheme cites a “relentless drive for efficiency” at its core and as part of its overall financial strategy it seeks “the procurement of certain special purpose vehicles [that] could enable the council to bring in significant expertise in areas where management and structures are complex, thereby reducing significantly the level of risk to the Council and enhancing its existing skills and systems”. These special purpose “vehicles” essentially take the form of private enterprise running outsourced services from LB Barnet with a view to, as the quote states; “reducing significantly the level of risk to the Council.
This rocky road to privatisation, even if it is only in part, runs the risk of a return to ruined public services. Private companies seeking to squeeze profit from customers will under-invest and only the wealthiest will be able to obtain the best standards. All of which makes a cocktail of disadvantage, exclusion and a widening poverty gap. Even apart from an ideological opposition to privatisation, it is a concern that this will undermine the very objective of local democracy. The lines of accountability have already become extremely blurred in recent years given the rise of local strategic partnerships where mysterious joint bodies such as children’s trusts, local safeguarding children’s boards and community safety partnerships can make largely un-scrutinised strategic decisions. Elected councillors will be able to offer even less leadership to their areas if the standard response will be “we don’t handle that anymore”.
The Local Government Act of 2000 paved the way for transparency in decision-making, ensuring that the elected councillors and not anonymous officers made the key decisions. The model being pursued in Barnet wholly undermines this by allowing key services to be run, at an arms length, by private companies.
One particular aspect of Barnet’s scheme has, however, been overturned by a successful judicial review. Two-hundred and fifty sheltered housing residents argued that the council breached the Disability Discrimination Act when failing to consult or involve the residents when reducing the number of live-in wardens to cut costs. The judge ruled that the Council did not properly assess the affect the removal of the wardens would have on the residents and did not have special regard for the Disability Discrimination Act.
The wider point here is the degree to which local government should be given greater powers of competence; as David Cameron has called for. The “well-being” powers that were introduced in the Local Government Act 2000, and which Barnet used to introduce its current Future Shape agenda, are powers of competence that have been watered-down as a result of judicial review. There is a crucial balance to be struck. On the one hand the need to allow local decisions to be made at a local level, with the needs of an area being addressed in a nuanced way by the elected representatives. Too much central control makes local government obsolete. The flip-side, however, is that there must be a higher management to protect against the at times off the wall decisions by local authorities; I would cite the Mayor of Doncaster’s rather preposterous policies by way of example.
Barnet’s easyCouncil is another case whereby a local authority is acting outside its brief in an attempt to save money, which is not the role of a Council. Financial strategies in local government should not be measures to cut costs over the need to ensure the best and most accessible provision for all. Whilst acknowledging the recession and the budget limitations is an important and responsible duty; it should not come twinned with a model that provides services for only those able to pay, the measure should be need, not wealth. Therefore, whilst the powers of local government need to be readdressed and local politicians need a second-wind of empowerment, I do not believe that the easyCouncil model is the right future for local government. Nor, for that matter, are Cameron’s calls for virtual omnipotence.
As for the easyCouncil representing wider Conservative policy; well Cllr Mike Freer, the brainchild of the project and the leader of Barnet Council is standing as the Conservative candidate for Finchley and Golders Green at the next election. A nod of approval perhaps?
