A Manifesto for Local Government

Delegates at the recent Weekend School were asked to give their views – in the run up to the election – as to the changes to local government they would like to see. Michael Mousdale and Bradley Martin review the comments.

When election manifestos were unveiled by the three main parties in England (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats), much of the media discussion centred on the state of the economic recovery, the challenges faced by the NHS and the depth and extent of further cuts to public spending.

What did they say with regard to local government? With a Conservative victory, it may seem to be a matter of history now, but with local elections happening on the same day, the great thing about local government is that each party’s policies matter at a local level regardless of the Parliamentary elections. In local government we have a largely even political landscape in place. However, it was hard to find too much attention given to local government in the debates and on the hustings.

Each of them were suggesting some form of devolution and the transfer of funding to regional authorities in differing guises to convince voters of their intentions to divert power away from Whitehall. The Conservatives and Labour both suggested devolved authorities would have the right to keep 100% of local growth in business rates, in addition to further powers over economic decision-making, transport and employment; with Labour proposing the devolution of £30bn to city and county regions through an English Devolution Act.

Combining services with neighbouring authorities was a key theme present in the manifestos of the three main parties, with the Conservatives encouraging local authorities to integrate services between and within authorities; such as with the Better Care Fund. Despite lots of encouragement for shared services and joint arrangements over the years, we are yet to see any legislation, and nothing approaching the duty of collaboration, which applies to all Welsh local authorities, has been proposed. Will new Communities Secretary, Greg Clark tackle this? Labour, too, was encouraging neighbouring authorities to pool funds and join-up services, with authorities having more control over local transport and business support, as well as the power to shape their high streets (for example, by refusing planning permission for betting shops).

The three main parties are all proposing further cuts to public spending (with local government no doubt taking a hefty share) but the Conservatives, who intend to make a further cut of £30bn from public spending over the next two years probably had more financial pain for local government planned than the other two parties.

Local Government Lawyers’ views

So, with the debate between the three main parties touching on few issues specific to local government, DWF decided to take the opportunity, at the LGG Weekend School in Exeter, to canvass the views of the local government lawyer community as to what changes or improvements to local government they would wish to see. We invited them to add to our ‘Manifesto Graffiti Wall’ their ideas and thoughts on what would improve local government. A few of the key themes are discussed below.

Right to Buy

Perhaps as a result of the concurrence of the Weekend School with the publication of the parties’ manifestos, an area which sparked much debate was the ‘Right to Buy’ policy and the Conservatives’ proposals to extend its application to Registered Providers' properties.

Many delegates advocated scrapping ‘Right to Buy’ completely, with one likening the policy to ‘giving away national gold reserves’. One delegate passionately argued that the policy was wholly responsible for the current housing crisis. Beyond the general disagreements with the ‘Right to Buy’ policy itself, some delegates delved deeper into the matter and suggested that the scheme could be improved if proceeds were made available for wider spending by local authorities. Public sector housing wasn’t the only target, with support for abolishing the ‘Help to Buy’ scheme expressed by some delegates, who reasoned that it ‘pushes up house prices at the expense of taxpayers’.

Commercialising council services

A recurring area of interest expressed both on the ‘Manifesto Graffiti Wall’ and generally throughout the conference was how, in response to austerity measures, local authorities can be more commercial and look to generate a profit from trading their services. We presented on this topic at the conference, which provoked interesting discussions about the steps which could be taken by local authorities in pursuance of this aim, both by making better use of older trading powers but in particular through local authority trading companies set up through section 95 of the Local Government Act 2003. The issue is one of very immediate concern for those legal departments considering setting up their own ABSs, which continued to be a strong theme of the conference.

Some delegates thought the whole area was too complex and did not sufficiently free up local government to innovate and be more entrepreneurial. There was a view, which we think has some force, which is that the general power of competence under section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 is not the force it was intended to be and that certain restrictions on the exercise of the power, such as the requirement to exercise the power through a company when acting for a commercial purpose, should be removed in order to allow authorities even further freedom to commercialise their services.

Continuing the theme of entrepreneurialism, a number of delegates expressed the idea on the ‘Manifesto Graffiti Wall’ that staff at the council should be trained with the aim of becoming more commercially-minded. In particular, one delegate stressed that senior officers at local authorities should be required to have commercial expertise in order to facilitate the commercialisation of local authority services. Another delegate even interestingly suggested local authorities should have income generation targets with the aim of operating without grants.

Re-organisation of local government structure

A key area which generated discussion was the current structure of local government, with many delegates proposing the replacement of the two-tier system with unitary authorities. Perhaps it comes as no surprise that such views tended to come from officers in single tier authorities, whereas those in the shire districts were more likely to wish to preserve the two tier structure. More specifically, one delegate from a London authority suggested that a reduction in the number of London boroughs would be an improvement to the delivery of public services in Greater London.

Many delegates agreed with our view that the current debate on devolution to local government was not fully understood, with many confusing local government reorganisation with the devolution of powers from central government.

Scrutiny and conduct

Accountability of members gave rise to varying views. A number of delegates regretted the abolition of the Standards Board regime with delegates generally lamenting the fact that members are now under less scrutiny as a result of the regime’s removal.

Delegates from across the country expressed a desire for the role of scrutiny to be strengthened in local government, with some proposing an increase in sanctions for code of conduct breaches.

Several delegates commented that the removal of the requirement for a designated independent person (“DIP”) in disciplinary proceedings in respect of any of the three statutory officers and the removal of the requirement that any disciplinary action must be in accordance with the report and recommendation of the DIP, was a mistake. As a result of the amendment, statutory officers, who exercise important regulatory functions which may bring them into conflict with their authority, and who subsequently require protection from arbitrary dismissal, no longer have this protection. Moreover, the manner in which it was introduced was disappointing.

Community Right to Challenge

The introduction of the Community Right to Challenge, through the Localism Act 2011, which allows ‘relevant bodies’ (voluntary and community bodies, charities, a group of two or more employees of an authority and parish councils) to submit an expression of interest to provide, or assist in providing, a council service, was questioned by several delegates. The capability of such ‘relevant bodies’ to provide services better or differently to local authorities was seriously questioned by such delegates, who felt that the introduction of the measure was a misguided attempt at community empowerment.

On this point, one delegate argued that as a successful challenge by a relevant body obliges the authority to initiate a procurement process open to anybody, likely winners of such procedures would be private sector companies which are able to offer competitive prices.

That debate, though, seems somewhat theoretical. As a number of delegates pointed out to us, the policy has been a spectacular failure with none able to point to any relevant bodies exercising the power in their areas.

Conclusion

The ‘Manifesto Graffiti Wall’ provoked some intriguing, passionate and sometimes, strange ideas and potential improvements from those with daily involvement in local government matters. Delegates from authorities of differing political compositions, from all over the UK, actively engaged with the ‘Manifesto Graffiti Wall’ and provoked some interesting discussion. Ironically, a constant theme was that many wanted to see a new Communities Secretary. They have got that and that for some may be a sign of hope, even if the government hasn’t changed.

We were surprised, though, that the same themes came up over and again. The overwhelming response from those in local government was to support greater devolution, to have further local government re-organisation and to see increased commercialisation, both from authorities as an entity and officers working within them. Surprisingly, however, within this local government community, some of the big issues of the day, such as health and social care integration, children’s service and education, raised little or no comment, On reflection, it shouldn’t come as a great surprise that issues like commercialisation were to the fore. The numbers of local government lawyers have held up despite the widespread cuts, but the pressure upon legal departments to do more for less and to bring in more income is unrelenting.

The manifestos didn’t put local government first but we can probably guarantee that local government will remain on the front line.

Michael Mousdale is a Partner and Head of Local Government and Bradley Martin is a Solicitor at DWF. Michael can be reached on 0161 838 0410 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..