Impose statutory duty on authorities to integrate, say barristers

The government should impose a statutory duty on all local authority and partner organisations to integrate and pool community budgets, barristers working in the public sector have said.

In response to the Cabinet Office and Treasury’s call for evidence on public service reform, the Bar Association for Local Government and Public Service (BALGPS) said: “One of the greatest hurdles currently facing community budgets is the inability or unwillingness of various public sector organisations – including some local authorities – to work collaboratively together and to pool community budgets.”

A statutory duty to integrate and to pool community budgets would help “obtain the best value for money for the public good as a whole and…. encourage innovation and creativity of all public services delivery, not just service delivery by individual public bodies”, it added.

The BALGPS response, submitted by its chairman Mirza Ahmad, said the association was supportive of the government’s actions to reform public service provision.

In addition to calling for a statutory duty to integrate, the association said:

• There is a need to avoid “old compulsory competitive tendering” prescriptive rules and regulations. “This is essential so as to avoid local authorities using the legislation to avoid tendering of their in-house services,” BALGPS said. “It must also be recognised that local authorities are voluntarily doing many of the things necessary for the transformation of public services – because of the tight financial/budgetary constraints facing the nation – and, as such, it is difficult to see how a Government imposed proportion (whether that be in relation to indicating “at least x%” or “no more than y%” of in-house services being retained in-house), will actually make a difference.”
• A prescriptive framework will not deliver the government’s objective of promoting independent provision in public services. “The key for government must be to ensure and encourage open market forces and to allow local authorities and other public bodies to determine the most relevant services for transformation/external service provision.”
• Public employees should be incentivised to take advantage of the “rights to provide” services. This could be through tax incentivisation or reliefs “so as to make private (as opposed to public) employment more appealing". There should also be ring-fenced funds available to make such transition more manageable. Seed funding could be limited to three to five years so that any new organisation is “clear that such funding will come to an end and it must be driven by open market forces thereafter”.
• It is essential to leave open market forces to deal with failures in public service provision. “Imposing an artificial bottom line safety net for the emerging public sector organisations or manager/employee buy-outs could risk increasing poor services,” BALGPS said. “Accordingly, the government will need to accept a certain level of failures in accordance with open market forces.” As a result the government should consider limited and appropriate safeguards in relation to vulnerable adults and children. “These should, however, be kept to an absolute minimum as unnecessary regulation will detract from encouraging or developing an open market”
• Any remaining national regulatory bodies left after the government’s reform of quangos must continue to “add value” to front line public service delivery. “This must, however, be supported by demonstrable evidence of tangible service improvements in delivery,” BALGPS argued. “If any national regulatory body remains, it must only do so if it delivers a positive net benefit in relation to the public pounds spent on its existence.” An appropriate formula could be devised to calculate “the positive net public benefit” delivered by such organisations on an individual and annual basis, with the government able to rapidly trigger the abolition of a national regulatory body in the event of any such body falling below a predetermined threshold.
• Local authorities are best placed to govern their localities and it is not the role of central government to govern localities. “If there is a role for central government re localities, it is one of central government supporting, with appropriate finances, local authorities efforts relating to their localities,” the association said. “The government should not, therefore, seek to build new (or replace old) controls over local authorities, as such controls will, undoubtedly, increase central government bureaucracy and costs. Which would, of course, run counter to the government’s stated aims of reducing the role of the State.”

BALGPS has 110 members. Its chairman, Mirza Ahmad, is Corporate Director of Governance at Birmingham City Council.