Place your bets
Author: Mike Morgan-Giles, L.G. Lawyer |
Apparently, what ‘Total Place’ means in practice is “letting local areas decide what to spend their money on in order to meet specific local priorities”. So all very promising so far.
Theoretically this should mean a complete release of power and funding streams from Whitehall to local government and their partners. But is there much hope that a clunking central institution like Whitehall will give up its perceived rightful territories and powers? The answer is of course no.
There are also the usual political issues which stifle meaningful debate and prevent immediate action. A Number 10 source was recently quoted as saying: “One of the political risks ? is essentially Tory local government using Total Place to say ‘we told you there was lots of waste’.” Such remarks risk undermining the integrity of the Treasury response to the pilots.
So where does this leave us?
The government has agreed that high-performing councils can have a greater degree of autonomy ? which largely refers to a reduction in the number of ring fenced budgets and also fewer centralised targets for councils to meet (something Localis advocated recently in fact). They have also agreed to consider looking at some revised methods of delivering services.
But what do ‘high performing’ councils actually want?
Three high-performing London authorities ? Westminster, Wandsworth and Hammersmith & Fulham ? are seeking devolved powers over policing, social care and worklessness. Another, Kent, is also keen for a change in the approach to unemployment.
The Treasury has agreed to run a few pilots looking into a localised approach to worklessness. This is a positive step. However, this is a system in need of major reform ? in fact, the Birmingham Total Place pilot found that of all the spending on worklessness ? 93% went on benefits, and just 7% on helping people get back into work. This is why words are not enough, systemic change must occur.
In fact, this emphasis on systemic change goes to the heart of the debate.
Critics of the Whitehall power base have noted that the central regime has coerced local authorities into implementing policies which have driven up costs, whilst worsening services. The Leicestershire Total Place pilot also showed that there is a 20% loss of revenue through bureaucracy at each stage from central government.
So what next?
The Treasury apparently considered a radical plan to set up 30 projects piloting shared public sector budgets. This would have gone some way to meeting the expectations of Localis and other serious reformers. Sadly, this was cut from the final Treasury report.
At Localis, we would argue that pooled budgets, more local control over funding, a broader influence and commissioning role for local government, as well as room for experimentation and innovation around early intervention schemes, innovative commissioning models and local variation in the delivery of public services is what the approach should lead to.
Little of the above seems likely at present.
Total Place should not be about making cost savings (although it will lead to them), and should especially not be about political maneuvering within central government. This will only damage public services and further isolate those people who are increasingly dependent on them.
It is therefore a challenge for the next government to take Total Place forward in the right manner. This remains a big opportunity, particularly when councils themselves are looking to offer a fresh approach to service provision (Lambeth, Barnet and Essex have all offered their own visions for the future).
The new government must therefore be openly radical and seek far reaching reform, particularly if they want to enjoy the billions of pounds worth of potential systemic cost savings.
If the new government is in fact the current government, it will be up to them to keep their promises ? indeed it was Liam Byrne and John Denham who advocated “letting local areas decide what to spend their money on in order to meet specific local priorities”.
Famous last words?