Central-Local Relations: a Perspective on Single Outcome

Agreements

Richard ParryReader in Social Policy University of Edinburgh

Scottish Policy Innovation Forum 13 March 2009

Acknowledgement

Scottish Public Management Network seminar 6 February 2009, with contributions from:

Justina Murray (North Ayrshire Council), Arthur Midwinter, Kirsten Gooday (Community Care Providers Scotland)

Two traditions in central-local relations

1. Grant consolidation in which central transfers come in a block and sub-central actors have the legitimacy and capability to allocate it

Centre reduces demands upon itself; sub-central gains autonomy; potentially at least, a relative lack of mutual blame

2. Grant transfers for specific ‘ring-fenced’ projects

Centre controls spending of money and makes local delivery actors dependent upon it; central-local relations become a continuous political tool which demonstrates the unequal resources between the levels

Tendency to oscillate between these two traditions

In Scotland, both reorganisations legislated by Conservatives as part of pro-local spirit in 1970s (strong regions) and pro-central in 1990s (weak councils) but inevitably overlain with political calculation

New Labour liked specific grants – purchase of a headline

SNP political strategy 2007

Establishment of credentials with actors in the political system and civil society in order to normalise an independent political system

Concordat November 2007 made possible by the fragmentation of local political control under new voting system, and pent-up anti-central resentment

Complexity of Concordat deal

‘freeze’ (= making available grant to allow freeze) of council tax 2008-11

Consolidation of many specific grants‘efficiency’ ‘savings’ ‘retained’ by councilsNo structural reorganisationRapid production of Single Outcome

Agreements (by April 2008, building on previous CoSLA/Scottish Executive work)

SOAs – not single

Not a consolidation of objectives or a tool for choice of priorities by local authorities; tendency to be a single document containing multiple orientations and purposes

Not outcome-based

Range of variables, many of them about output or level of activity: not a consistent focus on outcomes (end-states) and many of the outcomes are aspirational or not susceptible to any particular leverage by local authorities

Not agreements

Expresses local conformity with national outcomes as part of the protocol of central-local relations; initially at least, more like filling in the application form in the correct way

Some resemblances to Open Method of Co-ordination of European Union (‘soft law’); eg annual reports on European Employment Strategy

Positive signs

Relationship with Community Planning Partnerships is being rationalised

Scottish Government Directors being linked with local authorities, with interaction on drafts

A safe location for dialogue within Scottish public services (including ‘asks’ of the centre)

But the context is fragile

Little flexibility on the financial side of the Concordat; plans are rolling 3-year but spending review framework is fixed 3-year

Many tactical decisions by cross-cutting interests of political parties and levels of government

Will get caught up in electoral politics 2010-11

Policy directions - 1

Development of SOAs into the expression of an effective reciprocal learning process, more discriminating and diverse in the choice of indicators, the output of Community Planning, and a means of promoting the grant consolidation tradition

Policy directions - 2

Narrowing, not widening, the gap between the aspirations of the centre and the ability of local government to deliver them, including stronger fiscal instruments for local government that (unlike Burt recommendations 2006) are politically as well as technically robust