Ten Things you need To know……abouT public proTesT

FOR COUNCILLORS FROM THE LGIU

February 2011

localism in The spoTlighTspecial feaTure on The bill

The c’llr inTerviewhousing and local governmenT minisTer granT shapps

22

FOR COUNCILLORS FROM THE LGIU

EditorAlan Pickstock

dEputy Editor Jane Sankarayya

dEsign www.whateverdesign.co.ukCovEr piCturE Fiona Hanson/PA Wire

Contributors Jasmine Ali is an LGiU associateJoanne beavis is a cabinet member at Braintree District Council david brindle is public services editor of the GuardianMichael burton is editor of The MJ (Municipal Journal)Harry burns is chief medical officer for ScotlandJonathan Carr-West is a director at the LGiUbrian Connell is a Westminster City CouncillorMark d’Arcy is a Parliamentary correspondent with BBC News.diana Edmonds is Assistant Director Culture, Libraries and LearningChris game is with the Institute of Local Government StudiesCatherine Heffernan is a consultant in public healthKate Henderson is chief executive of the Town and Country Planning AssociationHilary Kitchin is an LGiU associateiain McKenzie is COSLA’s spokesperson on financeChris Mead has recently retired as IT director of the City of Berkeley, Californiasarah phillips is deputy director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships@ LGiU Andy sawford is LGiU chief executiveMark smulian is a freelance journalistroberta sonnino is senior lecturer in Environmental Policy and Planning, Cardiff University Jennifer sprinks is a freelance journalist sabine virani is a policy consultant and freelance writerHeather Wheeler is MP for South Derbyshiredave Wilcox is chair of the LGiU and Derbyshire County Councillor

Local Government Information Unit22 Upper Woburn PlaceLondon WC1H OTB020 7554 2800cllr@lgiu.org.uk

Contents

3 The first word A look at what’s in this issue

Reality Check – Dave Wilcox

4 A forward lookBrian Connell on reviving the local economyAndy Sawford on local government finance review

5 Chris Game’s A-Z of local governmentMichael Burton’s Viewpoint

6 LGiU UpdateAndy Sawford on the LGiU’s activity

7 Media WatchDavid Brindle – the media are going through the bins again

8 ParliamentA view from Heather Wheeler MP

9 10 things a councillor needs to know about public protest

10 Public healthThe importance of immunisation

11 FinanceJanet Sillett on the finance settlement

12 The c’llr interviewMark D’Arcy meets Housing and Local Government minister Grant Shapps

14 Localism – mayorsMark Smulian talks to willing and reluctant mayors

16 Localism – the Bill What you need to know about the Localism Bill

17 Localism and LondonWhat does the Bill mean for London governance

18 Localism – districtsHow will the proposals affect district councils?

19 Localism – planningThe Town and Country Planning Association on new powers for neighbourhoods

20 Localism – librariesHaringey’s local library success

14

20

28

21 Localism – partnershipsCouncils will need to work more with partners

22 Scotland – healthScotland’s public health challenge

23 Scotland – FoodRoberta Sonnio on sustainable school dinners

25 Scotland – FinanceDealing with the cuts

26 AwardsThe winners of the 2011 c’llr awards

28 Living wagePaying a living wage makes sense in hard times

30 ElectionsJasmine Ali on the Oldham and Saddleworth East by-election

31 Another viewDave Wilcox on Eric Pickles

32 Postcard from San FranciscoChris Mead on US style elected mayors

THE FIRST WORD

REMEMBER WHEN...

… demos were orderly respectful occasions. People marched, stood and listened to speeches (and sometimes

nodded off). No rioting, looting, kettling or mounted police charges. Was the world a safer place?

Here at c’llr we have to confess that we are a bit out of touch with prime time tv. The X Factor passed us by; I’m a

Celebrity might just as well have been fiilmed in the jungle (it was? Who knew?) But, we confess to having watched – with our hands over our eyes – Strictly Come Dancing. Or ‘Strictly’ as it seems we have to call it.

Of course, we couldn’t resist the one when the former home office minister did a turn. Though we didn’t see the one when the current Business Secretary stepped out after taking a step too far with a couple of undercover journalists.

What can we learn from Anne Widdecombe’s performance? It might be that ‘where there’s a will there’s a way’. And that seems to be how councils – yet again – are responding to events: the tougher than expected finance settlement and the prospect of more change that’s waltzing in with the Localism Bill.

In this issue of c’llrA good deal of this issue, including our interview

with Grant Shapps, is given over to articles that touch on the Bill and we probably could have filled twice as many pages given the Bill’s reach.

The ability of councils – and especially councillors – to adapt to the changing world is illustrated once again by our c’llr achievement awards. Our shortlists for the nine categories included a number of councillors notable for achievements over many years. They’ve been hard at work for their communities as Secretaries of State have come and gone. We also saw good examples of how councillors adapt to the world as it changes around them, for example forging new partnerships, grasping the opportunities afforded by new technology. And encouragingly there were plenty of inspiring candidates for the ‘young councillor’ and ‘new councillor’ awards.

So, in true tv style, we come to the moment when we reveal the winners…turn to page 26!

REALITY CHECK

I bumped in to Mary on the High Street. She was still hobbling. She’d broken her ankle two months earlier.“I guarantee it won’t snow again this year.” I assured her. Brave words those from a Derbyshire politician, until I pointed out that it was New Year’s Eve the following day.“It’s Sod’s Law.” I re-assured her. “I’ve just bought a sledge from the Pound Shop, so the chances of snow have diminished ten fold.”So far, the prediction has held, though in Edinburgh in early January I managed to slip on a glassy pavement and inadvertently crush the phone which cushioned my fall.“Just a call to give you some more information on what we do in Sweden.” said my first afternoon caller on the now partially functioning mobile. Over Christmas she’d told me that in Sweden you are required by law to clear the snow from your property and the immediate area.Given local government’s new powers to introduce bylaws and a new general power of competence on the way too, my ears had immediately pricked up. “What about people that live in flats, what about shops, what about the elderly and the infirm and what about people who work away from home?” I’d immediately asked.She’d since talked to her dad back in Sweden and collected a string of answers. “Kiki, let me call you back.” I suggested. “As a man I can’t walk, talk and write at the same time, and I’m just on my way to a summit.” After I descended from Arthur’s Seat I bumped in to Lord Tope.“Been talking to a Swede about snow clearing.” I said.“Snow. We’ve already introduced the “Big Society” in Sutton.” he beamed. “Distributed sacks of grit in early November to the electorate and asked them to clear and grit the roads themselves. Ten thousand turned up.”“What do the Swedes do?” he asked.“Not certain yet.” I retorted.“Suppose you’ll be proposing a site visit?” he ventured.Two great ideas in two minutes and with a bottle of Glasgow’s own Innes and Gunn oak-aged beer to quaff, so began the best start to a New Year I’ve had in a decade. Scholl.dave Wilcox is chair of the Lgiu

Barr

atts

/S&

G Ba

rrat

ts/E

MPI

CS A

rchi

ve

3

4

KFORWaRD lOOk

The Local Government Resource Review is unlikely to generate many headlines or send social networking sites into

meltdown but the coalition government has an opportunity to radically transform the economic and democratic future of our country.

Ministers have already promised to ‘revitalise local democracy’, rebalancing the relationship between local and national institutions through the Localism Bill. Reform of the complex, migraine-inducing local government finance regime represents the final piece in the government’s localism jigsaw.

We know that the system of financing councils relegates authorities as feeders of a central machine which churns out a settlement for each area. The only way of rebalancing our economy from one that is dependent on targets and handouts to one built on a dynamic and thriving private sector is by promoting competition and bolstering accountability at a local level. As councillors, we should welcome the fact that the view of local government as a bloated bureaucracy acting as conduit for Whitehall funds is changing

Councillors will see the effects of their decisions through a new lens. Planning applications, licensing decisions and infrastructure improvements will all have a direct impact on an authority’s budget. The complaints of a few vocal NIMBYs will have to compete with residents arguing why the council is not doing more to attract employers to the area.

In housing and economic development we will have to embrace new forms of accountability to our communities. It will make our lives more challenging but our decisions will take on more importance.

Localism and uniformity are incompatible. Business rate localisation will create the conditions necessary for genuine competition between regions and authorities to establish themselves as centres of trade and commerce.

In Westminster we ringfenced funds from the

Reform means busines

Ministers’ plans for the localisation of business rates could be the most radical change to local government for more than a century. Brian Connell, considers what it might mean for local democracy, development and

economic growth.

previous government’s flawed attempts at localisation, the Local Authority Business Growth Initiative (LABGI) for spending on schemes to promote economic development in the city. With a relatively small pot of money we have helped introduce new Business Improvement Districts that collectively now contribute £5.5 million a year in additional investment in their areas, supported back to work initiatives for residents, promoted the West End to national and international audiences and will shortly open a business centre providing small firms, start ups and social enterprises with affordable workspace and meeting rooms. With the little remaining money we will fund a Creative Industries Programme from April, supporting a sector that employs 69,000 people locally.

With greater powers and more locally retained business rates, councillors will have an opportunity to become active players in the drive for growth. They will, however, need to demonstrate to local entrepreneurs why they should base themselves in the area and stay there. Their decisions will be based on the education and skills of the population, the services provided locally and the physical and fiscal conditions for businesses, meaning that responsibility for these decisions takes on new significance.

That level of accountability will finally recognise the unique contribution that the private sector plays in employing residents, improving the environment and rejuvenating the economy. As the national economy continues to struggle local authorities have an opportunity to become genuine catalysts for growth in the communities we serve.

Brian Connell is Westminster City Council’s Cabinet Member for Business, Enterprise and Skills.

ANDY SAWFORD

For councils the level of funding reductions this year

and next will bring a sharp focus to the immediate

decisions that must be made. Looking beyond

this, the government is now beginning a welcome

review of local government finance, amid reports

of a conflict at the heart of the coalition about how

‘radical’ to be.

The LGiU is arguing that the review should at least

start with a broad remit and a long view around

implementing real change, rather than just tweaking

the current system. We believe that the review

should consider: fundamental reform of the grant

system; the potential for local taxes; the freedom

for councils to determine local charging for services;

and council’s freedom to borrow.

the Lgiu says the review should have a broad remit and lead to real change, rather than just tweaking the current system

This last point requires very urgent consideration

as under the current system the Treasury will block

councils from doing anything that adds to the Public

Sector Borrowing Requirement. One consequence

is that councils won’t be able to capitalise the costs

of the redundancies that many will be making, and

will instead have to use their revenue funding – the

money for local services.

The review is also an opportunity to consider and

then clarify other key financial issues, including

Business Rates, the reform of the Housing

Revenue Account, and the impact of changes in

specific grants. There have been lots of reviews

in Whitehall of the way that local government is

funded, most recently the Lyons report. This time

the government must grasp the nettle.

Take a long view

“

”

5

K is for Kakistocracy. Not an everyday word, but I’m still surprised never to have heard it

uttered in any conversation pertaining to local government – though, if the Communities Secretary gets to read this column, I guess that could change. It means government by the worst – by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Used in an 1829 novel by the English satirical writer, Thomas Love Peacock, it was resurrected during the 2008 US Presidential election, in the form, inevitably, of Kakistocracy T-shirts. Aimed at students, to remind them of the importance of voting, they could be flying off the shelves in 2012.

K is also for Kirtles – another possibly unfamiliar word, unless you’re a West Yorkshire cyclist. It’s the misspelling of its own name that Kirklees Council perpetrated – 20 times, no less – in its recent cycling promotion leaflet. There were plenty more: Czechisation for Cleckheaton, Whelping Cycles for Wheelspin bike shop, and, pleasingly, Brutalisation for British Waterways.

The tools were to blame, of course – a printer’s ‘unanticipated automatic spellcheck’– which would have carried more conviction had the same council’s workmen not painted BUS SOPT in 3-foot high yellow letters all over Wellington Street, Dewsbury a few weeks earlier.

You hoard these oddities if you commit yourself to an A to Z column. The end of the alphabet is obviously worst, but the JK pairing is also tough – unless you’re doing it in Polish, when Zs are easy too. In English K is the 5th least used letter, and there are plenty of major councils whose A to Zs can’t manage a single K-service.

COunCIllORS’ a TO Z

K

Shame on you, Barnet, Greenwich, Staffordshire, Wandsworth, and other guilty parties. Even if you don’t invite kerb (dropped) applications or offer a Knotweed (Japanese) removal service (thanks, Birmingham!), surely you can rustle up something – kerbside recycling, keep fit classes, kennel licences, even some key statistics? Or, scraping the barrel, some free keeping warm in winter advice – the dangers of using hot water bottles and electric blankets together, and so on.

Finally, keeping dangerous wild animals. A news agency survey in 2009, using the Freedom of Information Act, found, in just 87 local authorities: 267 dangerous snakes, 36 camels, 36 scorpions, 30 crocodilians, 23 big cats, and one zebra being kept in domestic homes. Whereupon DEFRA promptly decreed that owners’ licences would be extended from one to two years and the frequency of inspections reduced. Interesting!

is for...

VIEWPOINTMICHAEL BURTON

Councillors will be awaiting the onset of spring this year with much trepidation. While the rest of the country prepares for Easter, better weather and maybe the Royal Wedding, councillors will be waiting for the reaction to the toughest spending round in decades.

From 5 April householders will have an idea of how their services will look for the next financial year. For many councils it has been a case of salami-slicing, or slash and burn. With staff representing such a major part of their costs the savings inevitably have fallen on jobs with entire swathes of middle and upper management culled as well as frontline and back office staff. As yet it is difficult to know how the loss of these employees will impact on the ability to provide services.

Local government has come off about the worst across the public sector. During the first weeks of this year all chief executives and leaders could talk about was ‘how big is yours?’ – cuts, that is, ranging from 10 per cent to as much as 40 per cent in some districts, exacerbated by the frontloading of the reduced grant settlement.

But because councils always do what they are told, including making cuts, business also goes on. Many councillors will be preparing for the May election which this year make that day something of a ‘super Thursday.’ There are not only elections in 280 English councils but also elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Assemblies, all councils in Northern Ireland, parishes in England, four mayoral elections in England and of course the referendum for a new parliamentary system (if the Bill goes ahead, which at the time of writing is uncertain). Furthermore the government wants even more elections, for police commissioners and more directly elected mayors. The polls place a huge burden on cash-strapped councils and for chief executives and electoral administrators at a time when they have other concerns on their minds.

The point is that despite budget cuts and reduced tiers of managers local government is expected to continue providing services, carrying out its duties and even taking on new responsibilities even as its budgets are cut and staff are culled. We know that many councils are reviewing their non-statutory services. When the dust settles after April and council leaders have a chance to see the impact of the new budgets they may well decide there are some duties government wants them to do which are no longer viable.

Michael burton is editor of the MJ (Municipal Journal) and can be followed on twitter at MJMikeburton or on the website Localgov.co.uk

6

LGiU Update

updateThe LGiU aims to keep councillors and those working in local government informed about the latest policy development, writes Andy Sawford.

During January our Briefings service had many thousands of readers as we covered issues ranging from the changes

in social care and local health services to the impact of the Localism Bill on councils.

Our detailed briefing on the Local Government Finance Settlement was widely used in town halls as councillors and officers got to grips with the impact of the settlement on their authorities. All councillors in our member local authorities can access our briefings anytime via the LGiU website www.lgiu.org.uk. If you have any problems with access please let us know by email at info@lgiu.org.uk.

LGiU seminars remain popular, with our recent event on the new Education Bill sold out, and an excellent session on how Councillors can use social media to help communicate with local residents. Look out for future events by visiting our website.

Recently we’ve been aiming to get out and about around the country delivering policy seminars and training on your doorstep. I personally led sessions with councillors in Nottingham and Manchester, while Alan Waters, who heads our councillor training courses, has been delivering member training right across the country.

Looking ahead we are trialling a series of regional events in the North West and we hope to do more of these local, cheaper and easier to attend events around the country.

Our network on adapting to climate change will be organising workshops in Bristol, Birmingham, London, Newcastle and Manchester, so please look out for details and get involved.

Our other live policy development networks include the Big Society network, which is helping councils to develop their own local approaches to new ways of engaging citizens and communities, and our economic development network, which focuses on how councils can support their local economy.

We have also just launched a timely network of councils and other partners who are working together to develop successful family intervention programmes which improve outcomes and save money.

In London we organised a meeting of council leaders with MPs and the Minister of State for Decentralisation, Greg Clarke, to discuss the Localism Bill. I was delighted to be called as the first witness to give evidence in Parliament as MPs began to debate the Localism Bill. While welcoming the commitment to decentralising power, I used the opportunity to question Ministers on the 142 new powers for central government that are contained in the Bill, and to discuss key proposals such as those on housing and planning.

Our work on social care has attracted

The extent of the government’s ambition for change in education and children’s services is enormous, writes LGiU education expert John Fowler. The Education Bill included proposals from the Schools White Paper The Importance of Teaching published last November and the government Skill’s Strategy Skills for Sustainable Growth.

The Education Department has launched a succession of major reviews and consultations. These are likely to provide material for the next parliamentary bill. The reviews of child protection (Monro review), and vocational qualifications (Wolf review), which is likely to result in changes to the school and college curriculum for 14 to 19 year olds, are likely to continue for some time as is the review of primary school testing and accountability (Bew review) and

Children’s Services

particular interest recently both from our member councils and from the government. I have discussed the current pressures and future challenges for local government with Andrew Dilnot, who is leading the government’s commission on social care funding and we are working with a number of local authorities to look at finance options, and with the private sector to look at insurance models for self funders.

The highlight of 2011 so far has been the LGiU and CCLA Councillor Achievement Awards. Now in their second year, the Awards attracted huge interest and we were particularly pleased to receive so many nominations from local residents who value what their councillors do. Congratulations to all those who were shortlisted and to the worthy winners.

school capital (James review). The two reviews led by Labour MPs on child poverty (Frank Field) and early intervention (Graham Allen) have now reported, although there will be a further report by Graham Allen, and consultation on the Government’s approach to reducing child poverty has been launched. The Government has also launched a call for evidence on its review of National Curriculum and, separately, on a Year 1 phonics test..

The greatest changes for local government though have already happened. The financial settlement for 2011/12 and 2012/13 has meant significant changes for nearly all local authorities on how children’s services are provided. The long-term effect of the Academies Act 2010 is not known. In the short-term, many local authorities now have to reorganise support services and establish new relationships with the converted schools. Further information can be found in LGIU policy briefings.

7

MEDIa WaTCH

More rubbish in the papers

David Brindle says the media’s obsession with bin collections was given a welcome boost by the odd rotting turkey carcass and

scrumpled wrapping paper spilling out into the streets.

Let’s hear it for Alan Cresswell, of Bourne in Lincolnshire. While the media were working themselves up into one of their

periodic lathers over refuse collection, or rather the lack of it, the 91-year-old wrote to the Daily Telegraph to outline the simple steps he took when he occasionally forgot to put out his wheelie bin for emptying.

Explaining that he no longer drove a car, but had an electric mobility scooter capable of 8 mph, Mr Cresswell described how he tied the bin to the back of his scooter and towed it the mile and a half to the tip. “The wheelie bin runs rather noisily,” he acknowledged, “but nobody has ever objected.”

Even the police have not intervened to thwart such a stirring example of the Big Society in action, it appears. “I have even been overtaken by a police car with two officers inside,” Mr Cresswell wrote. “They looked at me as they passed, and smiled, so there is evidently no reason why I should not continue. I am sure many of the folk who complain about non-collection could do as much as I do, and more easily too.”

It was the Telegraph that started the latest kerfuffle about overflowing bins, in the traditional news lull in the first week of the new year, proving yet again that the media have a special interest in refuse collection that makes it such a particularly incendiary issue for councils to handle.

“Gardens, driveways and streets in many parts of Britain are full of overflowing bin bags, paper, bottles and plastic, research by the Daily Telegraph has found,” the paper portentously announced. Why so? Well, give or take the odd local industrial dispute, the main reason, the “research” found, was that there had been three bank holidays in most of the UK (four in Scotland) plus a large volume of wrapping paper and turkey carcasses to collect. It had, apparently, been Christmas.

Other papers, radio and TV piled in as the story took off and were incensed by a comment

by Pete Edwards, leader of Exeter council, that the piles of rubbish evident in parts of that city were “not a major problem”. “It may not be to him,” the Telegraph fulminated, “for local government panjandrums these days have far greater things to worry about than ensuring the bins are emptied efficiently.”

In case you were wondering, this was meant sarcastically. Refuse disposal was one of the fundamental reasons for establishing a system of municipal government, the paper argued, and it remained a bedrock provision and “one of the few near-universal services” dispensed by local authorities. “If they can’t get this right, they are unlikely to perform efficiently in other areas.”

So what was somewhat inevitably dubbed “binterval” had become an acid test of councils’ general competence. But when the press sought to link the problems to the old chestnut of so-called fortnightly bin rounds – in media minds, as regular readers will know, an evil only slightly less abominable than killing of the first-born – the narrative foundered on the

rock of localism. Attempts to get ministers to threaten central imposition of weekly rounds in response to the perceived crisis came to nought. While there might be fresh support and guidance for councils, incentives even, there would be no prescription.

Ambushed by reporters in the unlikely surroundings of the Oxford Farming Conference, environment secretary Caroline Spelman was forced to put the position in the plainest terms: “If you are a government which takes a localist approach, it’s up to local authorities how to organise refuse collection.”

Cut out and keep that quote; it may come in handy. For be under no illusion that this is not an issue consigned to the back of the bin lorry with the last of the Christmas pudding. Journalists have had their 2011 diaries out and already spotted that there are three bank holidays in the spring and all the waste likely to be generated by the royal wedding. Just think of those street parties and, of course, those souvenir supplements being planned by all the papers.

Harr

y Ve

nnin

g

8

paRlIaMEnT

Wheeler’s world

Heather Wheeler, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Local Government Group tells us what’s been catching her

imagination in Parliament over the last couple of months.

Former councillors made sure the local government finance debate was well-informed

In the past, I’ve followed the debates on local government finance from the outside as an interested party. So it was fascinating to actually be taking part in it. The chamber was full and suddenly it became obvious how many of the new MPs had local government backgrounds. People really knew their subject and the debate went on for a good three hours.

From the speeches, you could see the clear difference between councils, as represented by their MPs, who understand the new agenda and those that don’t. Some councils are making back office savings without cutting services or the front line; others are not engaging – some are almost using this funding settlement as a weapon against the government. There’s a huge gulf between those councils that ‘get it’ and those who don’t.

Backbenchers spoke up for the plight of people in park homes and chalets

I took part in a backbench debate to highlight the difficulties faced by many people who live in park homes and chalets. It’s not a widely reported story, but it should be. MPs shared examples of how some of the most vulnerable people are suffering at the hands of unscrupulous landlords. These residents, often elderly people, are at the mercy of site owners who, for example, can set the charges they want for gas and electricity. We also heard how some people are effectively being forced out of their homes so the people who own the sites can build and sell more profitable properties. Of course, some site owners are good landlords, but we have raised the issue of the bad ones with the minister who is consulting on a number of issues. For example, as local authorities are the licensing authorities should there be a ‘fit and proper person’ test to operate?

County court closures might give local authorities an opportunity to help the government

There was a debate on the proposals to close county courts. The thinking is that money could be saved and more courts operate from modern facilities if they were centralised. But the strong local government representation in the debate made sure the minister heard how this idea could affect councils. For example, council officers frequently need to attend court to deal with a range of issues, such as licensing, benefit fraud cases and so on. If they don’t have a local court, that’s going to take more time and cost more money than at present. Councils and MP’s have been getting representations from concerned local organisations such as Citizen’s Advice Bureaux.

A number of us have approached the minister to see if councils can perhaps start up new courts locally that would be modern and well-run – and be in tune with the spirit of localism.

There was a consensus against a knee jerk reaction to high profile shooting cases

Local government was well-represented in the Firearms Control debate. Our colleagues from city areas may have been surprised to hear how many rural areas had ‘shoots’, and that these are significant tourism attractions with benefits to the local economy. The chamber was almost of one

To commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January I signed a Book of Commitment in the House of Commons to honour those who perished in the Holocaust. In doing so, I joined others in paying tribute to those remarkable individuals who survived the appalling events of the Holocaust and have since dedicated their lives to educating younger generations about the dangers of allowing persecution and intolerance to take hold in society.

voice that actions in response to recent tragic cases should be considered and appropriate. One of the things that struck me during the debate was how it illustrated the way this Parliament has changed from the last: very few Labour members spoke, reflecting Labour’s lack of MPs with rural constituencies.

9

TEn THInGS yOu nEED TO knOW abOuT

Ten Things you need To know abouT…

Public OrderAct 1986

If, as has been suggested, the student demonstration over tuition fees point the way to more and more protests over cuts and other unpopular policies,

councillors need to know where they stand, as it were, on public protests. Hilary Kitchin explains.

Councillors – and councils – will be at the front line in implementing forthcoming cuts in public expenditure, and will need the knowledge and skills to respond to direct public protest. Public action can take the form of:• attendance and participation at council

meetings and events• static demonstrations (assemblies)

outside council venues • processions • leafleting, display of banners and

placards.

Following the Human rights Act, the emphasis on public protest has shifted. There is a greater recognition of the legitimacy of public processions and assemblies, and how rights to freedom of assembly and expression underpin these activities – recognised as the foundations of a democratic society. Councils should facilitate lawful public protest, and there are real benefits in doing so.

there is a balance of rights: not just of demonstrators (or counter-demonstrators) but also how far protest can reasonably disrupt other members of the community, or cause obstructions.• Public protest is a valid response to

potentially controversial decision-making which will have an impact on the community.

• Balance and proportionality should be applied in assessing competing interests.

1

2

3

Meetings: these would be assemblies if held in a public place. The rules adopted by councils for their own meetings will apply for attendance at town and city halls. There will be real benefits in facilitating contributions from representatives from protest groups at council meetings. Different rules will apply to council organised events in community halls.

Assemblies in public places: Defined as taking place where two or more persons are protesting in a public place, assemblies cannot be banned, but can be made subject to conditions as to place, duration, and the number of people present. There is no requirement of advance notice, so conditions are imposed by police on site. The grounds are the same as for imposing conditions on processions. processions: with limited and specific exceptions, organisers must give at least six clear days’ written notice to the police. This does not prevent the organisation of spontaneous processions, and a shorter period of notice will be accepted for events called at shorter notice. Police can impose conditions on processions; grounds include the likelihood of serious disruption to the life of the community and intimidation of other demonstrators. There is a process for banning a procession if the imposition of conditions is thought insufficient to prevent serious public disorder.

Leaflets, banners and placards: the council’s own by-laws may cover bill posting and leafleting as well as other protest activity. Distribution and display of racially offensive materials can be caught by the criminal law. In the main, leaflets and placards will be legitimate aspects of public protest.

policing of public protest: in addition to the ability to impose conditions on an assembly or processions, police have certain powers to control movement in order to prevent or reduce the severity of a breach of the peace. Police can intervene to contain or cordon groups of people, and to prevent individuals going to their destinations.

offences: The 1986 Act creates a number of offences that might occur in more serious situations, in which the police will be able to make arrests.

picketing: Peaceful picketing by union members at or near their own place of work in the course of an industrial dispute is lawful, although the law imposes limits. Councils will have experience of picketing, and trade unions will issue guidelines to picketers in advance. From the point of view of those taking part, the criminal law on public order must be complied with and directions from the police should be followed.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

10

publIC HEalTH

Protecting the herdAs rows about who does and who doesn’t get flu jabs become national news stories, Catherine Heffernan explains why local authorities should play their

part in making sure children are vaccinated against other diseases.

While shopping in the supermarket last week, I noticed a scurry to the nearest display of Pampers’ nappies. It wasn’t

the usual offer that had enticed the crowd but the promise that for every packet bought, a tetanus vaccine would be sent to the Third World.

“Those poor children”, one shopper said to me. “Tetanus, you know, is a deadly disease, you go into spasms before you die. We are so lucky here.”

This was ironic. I was after all standing in an area where only 68 per cent of children aged 5 years old had received their childhood immunisations. That meant that about 42 per cent of children aged 5 years old were at risk of getting vaccine preventable diseases, including tetanus. The ramifications are much more.

Vaccination isn’t just about protecting oneself from disease; it is a vital step in stopping the transmission to other people. This is called herd immunity. To illustrate, take a children’s party. All the children interact unaware that one of them has the early stages of measles. Two of the kids have baby brothers and sisters, who have not yet had their MMR. One of these babies is immuno-compromised and would be severely affected if infected with measles. However, neither baby is at risk as all children have been immunised with MMR. They formed a barrier preventing the spread of measles from the infected child to them and onto others. We need 95 per cent uptake of

the children’s population in order to effectively protect the entire population from dangerous diseases like diphtheria, polio, whopping cough, meningococcal and pneumococcal diseases.

In the UK, the childhood immunisation schedule consists of the primaries (diphtheria, tetanus, polio, Hib and whooping cough), the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella), vaccines against common causes of meningitis in children and school boosters. The schedule starts at two months, with two more visits at three and four months. At 12 and 13 months, there are three further vaccines, including the first dose of MMR and then before the child starts school, there is the second MMR and some boosters. Sadly, there are parts of the UK where uptake

of childhood immunisations have drastically declined. London in particular has recorded low numbers of vaccinated children. This has been reflected in the frequent outbreaks of measles across the capital. The reasons for the dropping figures are multitude.

There were some issues with data collection and quality. Changes to a new child health information system resulted in differences between what the GP practices recorded and the system that reported the COVER data (i.e. UK’s rates). However, these issues have been more or less resolved in the past year or two. Another problem has been that the contracts between those who commission vaccinations and those who deliver them tend not to reflect the 95 per cent herd immunity. For example, some GP contracts may financially reward GP practices if they deliver 70 or 90 per cent coverage but without the incentive to 95 per cent, it can be difficult to get those extra percentages. However, a big stumbling block is parental attitudes.

While the MMR scare is becoming a distant history, the public distrust of vaccines remains. Some parents believe that the vaccine will infect them with the diseases or harm them by adverse side effects. Underlying these fears is the assumption that here in the western world, we are safe. Since these diseases are no longer visible, people have forgotten how dangerous these diseases really are. It wasn’t so long ago that people were on iron lungs due to polio or disabled from diphtheria. Given the ease with which we travel around the world these days, these diseases could be on our doorstep tomorrow.

After clean water, vaccines are our greatest defence against disease. As leaders, we owe it to our public to improve their awareness of how important childhood vaccination is. Yes, there can be side effects, and apart from a temperature (which shows that the body is reacting to the vaccine and is producing immunity), these are mostly rare.

At the end of the day, you need to ask yourself, what’s worse: a jab with a temperature or your child, unborn child or even yourself being seriously ill from a dangerous disease? Local authorities can help protect their populations by working with the directors of public health in arming the public with all the facts. It is all our responsibility to ensure our burgeoning population remains safe.

since these diseases are no longer

visible, people have forgotten how

dangerous these diseases really are

“

”

11

FInanCE

Spending power not all it seems

When the government says its giving councils spending power it sounds like something to be welcomed. But Janet Sillett says it isn’t quite what it seems.

It always takes time for the full impact of the local authority grant settlement to be understood – and this is more true than usual

this year. Why? First, the huge cuts to grant – a real-terms reduction of 28 per cent over the spending review period alongside the changes to specific grants, with most being rolled into formula grant, has meant that the most deprived areas, with the greatest dependence on external funding, would be disproportionately worse off. The government, late in the day, accepted that this would be unsustainable and introduced changes to the distribution system, adding complexity to what is already an opaque process.

What are these changes?• New ‘damping’ arrangements were

introduced, with differential bands intended to reflect differing levels of dependency.

• Providing additional grant – an extra £30 million has been put into formula grant and a further £85 million transition grant in 2011-12 shared between the 37 councils who would otherwise have seen the sharpest falls in their ‘spending power’.

The Department of Communities and Local Government has introduced a new concept – ‘revenue spending power’, made up of the council tax requirement in 2010/11; formula grant for 2010/11, adjusted to allow a like-for-like comparison with the year ahead; and specific grants. Ministers have used the reduction in spending power figure to describe the cuts individual councils are facing, but some councils argue that using ‘spending power’ as the definition of cuts is misleading – given that it includes income from council tax. It also underplays the reality of the challenges councils are facing when they set their budgets, such as additional inflationary and income pressures, like increased demand for adult social care.

The government has recognised some other concerns from local government – especially relating to adult social care. The Health Select Committee has said that even with some protection from cuts, councils will need to make

further efficiency savings of up to 3.5 per cent to avoid reducing real levels of care. Given how hard this will be, there is even more riding on the Commission on Funding of Care and Support: it is increasingly critical that it comes up with sustainable long-term solution that is capable of achieving consensus, including political consensus.

Even with the changes to damping and additional money, the impact has been very uneven: councils in the north, metropolitan councils and districts have been hit the hardest. Districts, for example, will see cuts in formula and specific grants range from 13.8 per cent to 16.8 per cent.

The other pressing issue for local government when the overall spending figures were set out in the spending review was that the cuts were heavily front-loaded, but despite the last minute changes, there is still significant front-loading. This will inevitably make it more difficult to deliver efficiencies and service transformation in time to lessen the impact on services.

What this year’s settlement graphically highlights is the inherent difficulties of a system

where all councils rely to a greater or lesser extent on central government funding, and where some councils get up to 70 per cent of their income from the centre. Grant cuts on this scale, together with changes to how funding is allocated, especially in relation to specific grants, create new distortions in an already dysfunctional system. Of course, local government has called for the ending of ring-fencing for many years and now it has largely happened, but the merging of numerous specific and ring-fenced grants into formula grant or the school’s grant has led to even more damping and to uncertainty over what will happen when the transitional changes end.

Speaking in a Commons debate on 12 January, Communities and Local Government Minister Bob Neill said that a comprehensive review of local government resources would be beginning sometime in January in order to agree future settlement deals and to make the finance system more localist. Previous reviews have taken forever and delivered little – it is to be hoped that this one is smarter, quicker and actually delivers genuine reform.

Has the Government handed local government real spending power, or is it the latest term for cuts?

12

InTERvIEW

Grant Shapps

Mark D’Arcy meets the very enthusiastic Housing and Local Government Minister and hears about his radical – and controversial –

plans for social housing.

The new government wants more private and social housing built – and the instrument by which it plans to achieve that goal is the New Homes Bonus. Shapps takes some pride in having secured nearly £1 billion over four years to fund this policy, amidst the painful economies being made across government. It’s a simple, lucrative, incentive for local authorities to promote more house-building on their patch. For six years from the moment each new home is occupied, the authority gets its council tax take from that property doubled via a grant from central government. New houses will bring a direct financial reward to cash-strapped councils.

“In the end local authorities will have to find ways to survive within their budgets,” says Shapps. “They must make ends meet, so there is considerable pressure on communities to do something – and for the first time the pressure will rest on communities, not on some minister

Smart savvy local authorities, says Grant Shapps, should be focusing on how the coalition’s shake up of housing and

planning can help them weather the “record problem” of the cuts they face in central government support.

Wherever you look across the policy programme of the coalition, whether it is in education, social security, schools or constitutional change, ministers are pushing through radical new initiatives, often in the teeth of dire warnings from their critics. Shapps is no exception. It is worth pausing for a moment to contemplate his job title; he is the Housing and Local Government minister at DCLG – and his combination of responsibilities underlines the change in approach to some key issues by the coalition. Traditionally, the housing brief is combined with planning – and this new combination suggests the incoming government sees the solution to many of the nation’s housing problems very differently, and that it plans to nudge and incentivise local authorities to address them.

Shapps is one of the tier of high-flying Ministers of State regularly tipped for higher office in the coalition or a subsequent Conservative government. And like many of his colleagues he is relishing the chance to push through policies developed in the long years of opposition. And they are his policies, put together while a succession of Labour Housing Ministers – Margaret Beckett, Yvette Cooper, Caroline Flint, John Healey – came and went. He is evangelical about his approach, repeating several times that what he called the “Stalinist central planning” of the last government had failed to deliver the country’s housing needs – and different answers are required.

in Whitehall, who thinks that 10 5,000-home eco-towns are a good idea…”

But the government is both pushing for a housing construction boom and promising that unwanted developments will no longer be foisted on unwilling communities. So will the drive to build new homes be resisted by NIMBYs armed with the new powers promised in the Government’s Localism Bill? Will there be formal challenges and demands for local referendums to block unwanted developments? Shapps thinks not. He believes the effect of the new localism will be to make planners and developers come up with smarter, often more modest, proposals which offer some advantages to existing residents.

New developments, he observes, “don’t have to be Milton Keynes.” And it is often the out-of-scale development proposal that causes the most furious objections. Conversely, a small scale development in a village can allow young adults to stay in their community, and provide extra customers for local shops and pubs. Or a community might welcome the clearing of derelict land for new homes – and part of the cost of the clearance might be met by the local authority and recouped from the new homes bonus. It is a mistake, Shapps points out, to see all planning issues through the prism of communities in the South-East which are determined to resist new developments. In other regions the issues can look very different. Sensible councils, he adds, will make a point of ensuring that the communities directly affected by new housing developments will benefit from the extra funding the housing attracts.

And once the existing funding for the New Homes Bonus runs out, in three years time, it will be continued by top-slicing from future grant settlements (approximately £250 million

He has not been impressed by his first experience

of the ministerial meetings with unhappy

councillors which follow every grant

settlement.

“

”

13

InTERvIEW

a year would continue the funding at the current level) – so there will be a pot of money available only to those authorities which facilitate new house-building. The message is clear – get the planners to work now, to keep the money flowing in three years’ time. And incidentally, other government priorities like attracting business will be the subject of similar incentives, top-sliced off the general funding for local authorities, so it will pay to lay the same kind of plans in other policy areas too. “Leadership starts at home and local leaders will have to start looking three years ahead if they want their areas to prosper,” says Shapps.

He has not been impressed by his first experience of the ministerial meetings with unhappy councillors which follow every grant settlement. A number of these encounters have left him cynical about pleas of poverty from what seem to him to be rather well-padded councils: “the sheer outrageousness of having leaders and chief executives coming to my office and explaining that their authority is absolutely broke, when the chief executive is paid £100,000 more than the Prime Minister, was astonishing – I gave them pretty short shrift, because they clearly didn’t see the irony.”

The break with previous policies is equally dramatic when it comes to social housing. Labour spent £17 billion on social housing in 13 years, and ended up with more families on the waiting list than it started with – 1.8 million now, compared to 1 million in 1997, Shapps says. Even without the economic crisis he insists no government could have found the money to put every family on the list into traditional, heavily subsidised social housing – and once again his answer is something radically different.

The centrepiece is the proposal for a new class of housing – a subsidised “affordable rent” sector where rents are higher than social housing, pegged at 80 per cent of the market level – but where providers must use the surplus over the rent received in social housing to build more new homes – creating a funding stream for further building, continuing for years to come.

That is combined with a new approach to social housing tenancies. Shapps believes the present “homes for life offer” should be replaced with a mix of time-limited tenancies – he emphasises for new, not for existing tenants – chosen according to circumstances.

That applies particularly to homelessness – where he thinks that it is not sensible to respond automatically to an emergency in someone’s life, the loss of their home, with the offer of social housing for life. He wants local authorities to be able to discharge their homelessness duty by making a “reasonable” offer of private sector housing for “a couple of years.”

In some cases the new approach might mean a tenancy running for as little as two years, leading to accusations that social housing estates would become transit camps where residents never stayed long enough to put down roots and build stable communities. Shapps disagrees - he expects the advent of affordable rents to mean that social housing becomes more socially mixed – with a healthier proportion of tenants in work.

Very short tenancies, he believes, will only be used in unusual circumstances. He anticipates tenancy agreements will run for perhaps five years for younger people and ten or 15 years for families, after which the tenant might move on, or buy the house, or re-let. There would be a re-assessment of the tenant’s housing need, six months or so before the end of the agreement, and with 250,000 overcrowded homes and 430,000 under-occupied, Shapps’ hope is that the result will be “the holy grail of housing policy,” tenants placed in more appropriate homes. Fewer little old ladies rattling around in a family home, from which the family has

shapps expects the advent of affordable rents to mean that social housing becomes more socially mixed – with a healthier proportion

of tenants in work.

“”departed, would mean fewer families crowded

into tiny flats. He has been impressed by initiatives like Leicester City Council’s Easy Move tenant relocation scheme, which offers council and housing association tenants support to move to a smaller home, with a dedicated worker helping out with transferring utility bills, connecting up washing machines and similar problems – and providing up to £1,000 for redecoration and new furniture. DCLG has found £13 million to help other authorities set up similar schemes.

There’s no doubt that Shapps is a confident assertive minister, with a radical agenda and the media skills to make his case. His task now will be to deliver on his policies – and to do that he needs local authorities to pick up the tools and incentives he is providing, and run with them, and come up with smart decentralised solutions to housing need – the question is, will the incentives he is providing be enough.

Mark D’Arcy is a Parliamentary Correspondent with BBC News.

14

MayORS

Bosses beckon for big citiesThe leaders of 12 major city councils are about to have greatness thrust upon them, in some cases very reluctantly. Mark Smulian

spoke to some those in line for the hot seat.

Under the Localism Bill, the government intends to turn these dozen into ‘shadow mayors’ ahead of referendums planned

for May 2012 to decide whether or not they should become actual mayors.

Those affected are the leaders of Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield.

In its explanation of the Bill, the government says: “Almost every major city in the world has a strong and powerful executive mayor. “Mayors give local citizens a powerful local leader and figurehead for municipal government, better deliver local economic growth, boost local democratic engagement and enhance the prestige of a city.”

These assertions are, though, contentious in all three main parties, none of which is solidly for or against elected mayors.

Nor is the public. Only 13 out of 37 mayoral referendums to date have produced a ‘yes’ vote and one of those, Stoke-on-Trent, has since scrapped the post.

Despite this round of mayors being an initiative from the Conservative wing of the government, only one Tory – Birmingham’s Mike Whitby – would become a shadow mayor, and he leads a joint administration. The other 11 are all Labour or Liberal Democrat.

One prominent figure with his hat in the ring is Sir Peter Soulsby, who is seeking the Labour nomination for Leicester, one of very few places to have used the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to create an elected mayor, and which consequently will have its election this May without a referendum.

Sir Peter was council leader from 1981-99 and MP for Leicester South since 2005. “I am very much in favour of elected mayors,” he says. “It is a democratic option that gives power to the community to decide who is to lead it, rather than councillors deciding that after an election.”

Although he had a long stint as leader, Sir Peter says: “The prospect of being elected by the people to pursue a vision for the city’s future is something very exciting at a time when things will be very difficult because of the government’s savage budget cuts.

“The difference is that a leader is just that, the leader of the council not of the whole community, and to be accountable to the community is the great advantage.”

He says the issues he would particularly want to pursue are regeneration, elderly care and education, which he admits is “not as good as in some other major cities”.

Ministers’ intention to pass powers down to elected mayors “is one aspect of the government’s localism that I find encouraging but we need to make it a reality,” Sir Peter says.

“One issue is raising finance locally rather than just relying on council tax and grant which at an unusually high proportion of a council’s income gives the government too much control.”

Leicester is a very diverse city, around 36 per cent non-white according to the 2001 census,

but Sir Peter insists it is possible for one person to represent the whole community.

“I think Leicester’s people have gone beyond just looking at the ethnicity of a candidate and instead look to who is best for the job,” he says.

It is this point though that worries Bradford’s Labour leader Ian Greenwood. He says: “Bradford is a very diverse place geographically, socially, economically, ethnically and culturally and to move forward you have to recognise that diversity and that cannot be represented by local government being encapsulated in one person. People want to be involved, not have one person telling them what to do.

“We have yet to discuss it in the Labour party, but I would expect to be part of a campaign against a mayoralty in a referendum.

“In fairness to the other parties here, they have recognised that Bradford is a very diverse place and I have never heard them say they support a mayor.”

if the idea of having an elected mayor

is such a good one, why has no party proposed that we

govern the uK that way with an elected

prime minister.

“

”

Ian Greenwood

15

MayORS

Bosses beckon for big cities

Councillor Greenwood also has more philosophical objections to elected mayoralties. “If the idea of having an elected mayor is such a good one, why has no party proposed that we govern the UK that way with an elected prime minister who would be all-powerful?” he asks.

“We live in a parliamentary democracy where power rests with elected representatives drawn from different parts of the community and you need everybody on board like that to move forward. My view is that people do not want a presidential style of local government.”

He thinks councillors would be left only with a “very frustrating” scrutiny role, and thinks having around 90 of them holding one mayor to account would be absurd.

Sion Simon stood down as Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington at the general election to seek nomination as elected mayor of Birmingham, a post which did not then exist.

He explains this move by saying: “I changed my mind about elected mayors during the course of the nine years I was a Birmingham MP, not because of some abstract belief in a new system, but from practical frustration that the city council doesn’t work.

“It is a dysfunctional institution, over-centralised, over-mighty, not efficient and not responsive, and all of that, more than anything, because of a lack of real accountability.”

Mr Simon believes real power in the council rests with senior officers who “may be good people working hard in public service, but they

bristol is a city with 400,000 people and a budget of three quarters of a billion pounds, can someone off the television really run that when

they have no experience?

“”are not responsible to the public; not at all

democratically accountable, and even a good council leader is not directly accountable to a big city electorate in the way that an elected mayor will be”.

Elected mayoralties are, he says, “about where the buck stops, without a public sense of which you will never get the kind of cultural and organisation change that’s needed in Birmingham’s city government. For an elected mayor, when bad things happen, there’s nowhere to hide. And that’s what makes the difference”.

Newcastle’s Liberal Democrat leader David Faulkner does not relish becoming a shadow mayor. “I don’t think either us or the Labour party in Newcastle have any appetite for elected mayors and I would not be surprised if both parties campaign for a ‘no’ vote,” he says.

“There would be too much power in the hands of one person and it is just aping an American system for the sake of it.

“It might work there, but we have a different system where even leaders are ward councillors rooted in their communities.”

He adds: “I recently visited Groningen, one of our twin cities, where they were complaining that the mayors have no constituents and so are disconnected from communities.”

Three of the north east’s 12 unitary councils have elected mayors but Councillor Faulkner says he sees “no real evidence that those councils are better led or are better performing than the others”.

Barbara Janke, Liberal Democrat leader of Bristol, agrees. “I don’t feel that to give councils more powers you need to have an elected mayor, you could give them to the leader and cabinet. I just do not see the need for creating these authoritarian figures.”

She also fears that celebrities drawn from entertainment or sport might get elected on populist issues to a post they could not fill.

“Bristol is a city with 400,000 people and a budget of three quarters of a billion pounds, can someone off the television really run that when they have no experience?” she wonders.

Councillors Faulkner and Greenwood both say that the cabinet system creates discontent among backbench councillors, who feel excluded from power, and feel an elected mayor would make this problem worse.

Sir Peter though says scrutiny “can be effective if it is properly resourced and organised and my experience in parliament has shown how the select committees can be very effective and are taken seriously and we need to learn from that”.

Next year’s referendums are likely to produce some unusual political alignments as leaders are dragged, willingly or not, into mayoral status.

Barbara Janke

16

lOCalISM

Opportunity knocks

If patience is a virtue, then waiting for the Decentralisation and Localism Bill sometimes felt like an extended exercise in moral excellence. Originally due

in October it finally arrived on 13 December. However no one could accuse the government of idling in that time: at 406 pages, 207 clauses and 24 schedules, it’s

certainly a mammoth piece of legislation, write Jonathan Carr-West and Andy Sawford.

The Bill’s stated aim is to devolve greater powers to councils and neighbourhoods and give local communities control over

housing and planning decisions. For LGiU, the key test will be whether the Bill enhances the ability of local people to make decisions about local services and public spending priorities, and will it engage them as citizens within a framework sustained by a strong, responsive council?

There are six key areas in the Bill which will impact most directly on the localist agenda1. A General Power of Competence for councils2. Giving communities the power to trigger local

referendums on general issues 3. Referendums on council tax increases above

a certain level4. The Community Right to Challenge and to

take over and run public services5. Arrangements for parish councils to nominate

buildings and assets of community value which communities then have the opportunity to bid to take over if they are disposed of

6. The revision of the local planning regime to allow local people to be more involved in planning their areas The LGiU has commented on each of these in

detail in our policy briefing on the Bill, but as a general observation the Localism Bill contains many measures that councils will welcome and some elements that they may treat with more caution. The proposed new General Power of Competence is a bold statement in law. It is also a challenge to councils to act independently and with self-confidence as the culture shifts from waiting for Whitehall’s legislative permission and guidance. The idea is that councils will, in future, be legally free to do whatever they think is in the interests of their community. The reality may be different as in the detail of the Bill there are many qualifications and limitations on how

councils may use the power. It may be that the big test of the power comes in the courts.

One very clear limitation of the powers of councils is around finance. The Bill includes new responsibilities on councils to publish data about public spending, including on senior salaries. In theory the government says that councils can raise more money locally, but this will be subject to a referendum. Who can argue against a ‘democratic’ test around local taxation, or indeed other issues that may be subject to referendums under the ‘Local Referendum’ provisions in the Bill. Yet this approach looks like double standards from Whitehall, where the Chancellor exercises huge powers to vary,

at a stroke, the tax we pay from one year to the next, without being subject to a referendum. One might wonder why the electoral mandate is considered a democratic basis for MPs to govern but not for elected local councillors or mayors.

The ‘people power’ elements of the Bill include a new community “right to challenge” the council over the provision of local services, and a new right to bid to buy local assets such as libraries, pubs and shops. There are of course already many successful examples of this kind of community challenge and involvement, but we must ask what will motivate more people to want to take over services or assets rather than have the council deliver them? Similarly when community groups do get involved how will we ensure that they are

Councils must seize the opportunities and the challenges the bill presents to shape the

detail of these policies at a local level“

”properly supported and that they are accountable in respect of service standards and use of public money. The government will want to achieve this without reintroducing what it sees as the ‘deadening hand’ of the Big State, but the role of local government and of elected local councillors will be crucial.

The Bill is silent on many details of how this role will play out but in this instance patience may be less of a virtue. Rather than waiting for central government guidance, councils must seize the opportunities and the challenges the Bill presents to shape the detail of these policies at a local level. No one can claim this will be easy, especially at a time of budget cuts, but ‘wait and see’ won’t work.

17

lOCalISM

Capital ideas on localism

With the help of Westminster’s Colin Barrow and Hackney’s Jules Pipe, Jennifer Sprinks explores how the proposals in the

Localism Bill will affect London governance.

The Localism Bill has been hailed as the force that will shift power away from central government and back into the

hands of councils, communities and individuals.It sets out a number of measures for

decentralisation, including a radical re-boot of the planning system, changes to social housing policies and the devolution of powers to the Mayor and London boroughs.

It appears that the local government family is being divided into two camps over the Bill; those who believe it will bring transformational devolution and those who fear its proposals are mere rhetoric.

For Westminster City Council leader Colin Barrow, the Bill is “truly revolutionary”.

“The closer decisions are made to the people, the cheaper, the more reasonable and less nonsense they are. It may be uncomfortable [for councils] during the transition but the end result will be good.”

What he likes about the Bill’s proposals is the flexibility for London boroughs to respond to local needs, particularly around the provision of social housing.

“One third of our borough is in social housing,” he explains. “Westminster will have different social housing needs to other boroughs so we need flexibility. We might decide to provide

a [subsidised housing] area for certain p ro f e s s i on s , such as nursing. It’s vital for the future shaping of London to think about how we create social housing and define it.”

He believes the flexibility will spark variation in the policies adopted by different boroughs.

“I think we will see great differences between local authorities,’ he says. ‘We will see how neighbouring authorities like Lambeth will go down a different path from Westminster and that’s a good thing. It will encourage innovation and change, and greater creativity.”

In theory, the proposed new general power of competence means councils will be free by law to do whatever they think is in the interests of their community.

“It will enable councillors to be released from the frustration of having officers saying

that something cannot be done because of guidance issued by central government,” he enthuses.

But Barrow believes the Bill could go slightly further and devolve some more responsibilities to the boroughs to get the right balance of power between the Mayor and local councils.

“We would like to have control of the parks and to maintain all of our roads. We could maintain them far more effectively and cheaper locally than have Transport for London do it.”

Jules Pipe, chair of London Councils and Mayor of Hackney, is also concerned that too much devolution “has stopped at City Hall” and does not go far enough, particularly around housing powers.

He has some reservations about the Bill, adding that the drafting of certain proposals, namely around local planning policies, reach “a dead end”.

“We have built half a bridge – at the moment it does not lead anywhere.”

Pipe fears that the proposal for local authorities to hold a referendum in their local area if just five per cent of the electorate petition for one could prove expensive, without resulting in any direct benefit to the community.

Furthermore, he says there are grey areas over how the general power of competence will work in practice.

“The positive sounding intentions are being offset by too many caveats which raise questions about how real is the devolution it would bring and how different the London boroughs really will be because much will still have to be referred upwards, not just to the mayor but to Communities and Local Government. It won’t change London governance for the general population.”

Barrow and Pipe may not entirely agree about the revolutionary nature of the bill in its current form, but both recognise there will be plenty of opportunities to refine it during its passage through parliament.

“It will take a while for the full glory of this Bill to become clear,” says Barrow. “But it’s a very powerful and important piece of legislation.”

18

or feeling powerless in the face of major change. Quite aside from that decisions are likely to be more grounded if they reflect people’s actual opinions even if that means that they are not entirely satisfied with the outcome.

The Bill is packed full of freedoms, flexibilities, transparencies and entitlements and will undoubtedly take time to unravel but one thing is for certain: The red tape is being cut.

Whitehall is finally shifting some power in favour of motivating communities to take up the offers that this new Bill provides for them. Some of the key changes in the Bill are: a new general power of competence; abolition of the Standards Board; neighbourhood planning; community right to buy; social housing allocation; community right to challenge.

The Braintree district has 435 town and parish councillors together with large unparished areas. The Bill provides recognition of the role of the local community, neighbourhood, village, parish and town. During the autumn of 2010 the District Council held a Town and Parish Summit. The event acted as a catalyst to drive forward ideas as to how the three tiers of local government could work more closely together. No one has all of the answers yet. It is easy to get counter-productive and ahead of ourselves.

To conclude, we are actively mapping out a structure that forms the glue to bond our local government family together. Our aim is to ensure that services and priorities are targeted to the needs and requirements of a locality. For our councillors, however, realising this agenda will require some new thinking of their role. Our member led Member Development Working Group has been instrumental in agreeing an induction programme to provide all new councillors, post the May elections, with training and support.

The Braintree district is at the heart of rural Essex. It lies between the rapidly growing regional centres of Cambridge, Ipswich, Colchester and Chelmsford. London is only 45 minutes away by road and rail and so there is a significant “London effect”. This location, with its attractive countryside, historical towns and villages has made the Braintree district a popular place to live and provides the opportunity for realising a prosperous future with high quality life.

lOCalISM

Braintree cabinet member Joanne Beavis considers the impact of the proposals of the Localism and Decentralisation Bill on a

small council such as Braintree.

Brave new world

The impact could and should be significant. Size is not a barrier, it’s about having the determination to punch above your weight.

Braintree’s large geographical size, 140,000 residents and rural and urban settlements mean barriers will need to be overcome.

The Bill is a massive piece of legislation and has been announced alongside some of the biggest cuts seen in local government for years. We have known for some time that the cuts in public expenditure would be deep. We must now be bold in our thinking and not be afraid to embrace the new Bill. It is time for us to enter a brave new world. Whitehall is passing us a baton and we must grasp it firmly and be prepared to run with it.

The Bill offers us greater leadership over our communities but as importantly it gives citizens the opportunity of engagement and challenge.

Braintree District Council is undergoing a transformational change. Four years ago, and under the leadership of Councillor Graham Butland, we transferred our housing stock by creating a new housing association. Our approach to a Community Gateway model has put tenants at the heart of decision making in their area.

The transformation has continued as we embrace a new culture. We are a people

focused council. Our People’s Panel allows for the opinions of our citizens to shape how the council operates.

The Braintree Neighbourhood and Budget Pilot, in partnership with Essex County Council, will devolve decision making about how services are provided to the most spatial level or community. Our approach to neighbourhood devolvement is allowing for communities to take over ownership and management of community assets.

We believe in the Big Society. In our experience people do not like having things done to them

the bill is packed full of freedoms,

flexibilities, transparencies and

entitlements and will undoubtedly take time

to unravel.

“

”

19

lOCalISM

Power to the people?Kate Henderson, chief executive of the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), looks at whether the Localism Bill will deliver a

new settlement between people and planning.

The government has set out plans in the Localism Bill to revolutionise the planning process by “taking power away from

officials and putting it into the hands of those who know most about their neighbourhood – local people themselves”.

The Bill seeks to deliver on the government’s pledge to ‘radically reform the planning system’. The rationale for this reform is the criticism that the current planning system is out of touch with people’s lives and not fit for purpose in securing lasting progress on key issues, such as the provision of housing and tackling climate change.

The Bill sets out an ambitious, but procedurally complex new neighbourhood planning framework. There are also changes to the Local Development Framework process, the abolition of Regional Strategies, and introduction of a new ‘Duty to Co-operate’. So the overarching question is – will localism deliver a more efficient, fairer and effective planning system vital in securing the long-term wellbeing of our communities?

Collaborative neighbourhood planning, so that more people can be involved in the process of shaping the places in which they live and work, is an opportunity to be grasped. The TCPA has a long track record in promoting community participation and the government’s determination to reconnect the system to the people it serves is to be welcomed. However, is the neighbourhood planning framework set out in the Bill sufficiently inclusive and flexible to meet the needs of all communities?

What the Localism Bill offers is a route for communities that is procedurally complex but ultimately powerful in law. There are questions over access to the neighbourhood planning process for those communities who lack the social and financial capital to navigate the system. Another important outcome of this framework is that neighbourhood planning bodies for rural parished areas and urban areas are starkly different. Parishes are fully constituted lower tier elected councils with clear rules on the disclosure of interests and bound by duties applying to public bodies. They are also democratically accountable. In the absence of a parish council, ‘Neighbourhood Forums’ must have a minimum of three people and pass

a series of tests before becoming a qualifying body. It is imperative to the legitimacy of the plan-making process that neighbourhood forums are transparent, representative, inclusive and accountable.

While the concern to ensure that neighbourhood planning has a powerful outcome is a valid aspiration for some communities, the TCPA believes it should not be seen as the only route to empowering people. There should be a debate on how more informal plans and community visions, which might suit the needs of many places, can be properly integrated and respected in the planning process. These less formal expressions of community aspiration provide the flexibility to have differing kinds of ‘conversations’ about development with the diverse sets of communities which exist in many parts of England.

Councillors will have a vital role to play, along with community organisations, in supporting local people in coming together to produce neighbourhood plans and visions. Whereas before many of the tensions in planning played out between the local and regional level, these may now be transferred to the local and community level. Councillors should consider how they can help mediate the relationship

between local people’s aspirations and wishes and the wider framework of the local plan.

This is a historic planning reform Bill and although not addressed here, there are equally important questions over how, in the absence of regional planning, strategic cross-border issues such as housing and climate change can be properly considered. The effectiveness and fairness of the new regime depends not just on the extensive forthcoming regulations, but a wider package of changes including the introduction of the New Homes Bonus, designed to incentivise housing growth, and a new National Planning Policy Framework, which will contain the key national policy direction for planning.

The government aim of creating the freedom and the incentives for those places that want to grow to do so, and to reap the benefits, is a valid one. However, the places that are more resistant to growth or have limited access to support for engagement will need local authority leadership more than ever.

The Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) campaigns for the reform of the UK’s planning system to make it more responsive to people’s needs and aspirations and to promote sustainable development.

www.tcpa.org.uk

Will the Localism Bill lead to better local decisions about new housing?

Rob

Brew

er

20

lOCalISM

The data differenceLibraries are in the news, being seen as likely candidates for

cuts. But sitting at the heart of communities they are a truly local service. Dilek Dogus, Cabinet Member for Adults and Community Services, explains how Haringey is using retail techniques to get

the best out of the council’s libraries.

Multi-national companies know all about you. The big supermarket chains know what social background

you come from, what your buying habits are and when you like to shop.

And just like supermarkets, libraries can offer a better a service the more they know about their customers.

Many of the issues which affect supermarkets also affect libraries: the brand, marketing, location, opening hours, car parking, the product range, merchandising and the quality of customer service … the difference, of course, is when and how the customer pays.

Like other retail organisations, libraries gather customer data and – more importantly – have the potential to use that data to develop and improve the range of products they offer.

In Haringey, the nine libraries across the borough were used by almost 60 per cent of residents, the highest level of use in London.

With over 2.1 million visits annually, libraries are the third most-used council service, and were recently voted “good” or “excellent” by 63 per cent of our residents. They have become “high performing” largely because they have used the information which they gather to alter – and keep altering – their services and facilities to make sure they remain relevant and attractive to their customers.

Haringey libraries, like all libraries, have access to a wide range of information on their customers. At the most basic level, they know how many people visit libraries each day or each month. They know who the members of the library are, how old they are and where they live. They can identify what members borrow from their libraries and so can monitor and improve the effectiveness of their selection of books, DVDs and other materials. They can identify how often computers are used in the library, in how many sessions and by how many

customers. They can also monitor the level of use of wireless technology, how many hours are used each month and when peak use levels occur.

The information is pored over and analysed each month at our libraries management team meetings. Some of the information confirms what everyone knows – just by looking at the statistics we know what the weather’s been like – more people use libraries when it’s raining or snowing and fewer people come in when it’s a nice day and we’re always looking at new ways that we can attract more customers as well as making sure existing customers keep on using the service.

Analysis of data over time shows us trends in usage and that has an impact on what we do. For example, more people in the east of the borough stay at home during holiday periods so we provide more children’s holiday programmes.

Other trends have changed the layout of our libraries. The significant increase in computers at our libraries means that people need sockets to power up their laptops. Wireless users also seem to have a more casual approach to seating, happy to perch on stools at high tables.

Does this all work? Does knowing your customer guarantee a constant supply? No, it does not – but it does increase the odds. For us in Haringey, autumn was a relatively quiet period, with lower numbers of visitors than usual. We responded by pushing the use of our loyalty card and introducing a “Snuggle up with a DVD” offer. Thousands of people came into the Central Library during November. The seats were full and the shelves emptied.

Analysis of data over time shows us trends in usage and that has an impact

on what we do

“

”

Councillor Dogus re-opening Coombes Croft Library in Tottenham with local MP David Lammy after major improvement work.

21

lOCalISM

New Partnerships to deliver localism

The Localism Bill, writes Sarah Phillips of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships, heralds more choices but less funding; new partnerships and more leadership.

Even before the Localism Bill is law, there have been huge cuts to centralism and prescription – along with much of the

funding it ‘guided’ locally. Local government has more flexibility – but must use it quickly to decide on priorities in the face of the most challenging budget settlements. There will be an impact on services that feel frontline to their users. Officers are giving difficult advice, members are taking tough decisions and are keen to have partners to share the burdens.

For many councils the shock of in-year and front-loaded cuts almost defied logic and the need to respond has limited strategic planning for 2012-15. But the Centre for Public Service Partnerships has noticed some areas have built on their positive experiences of partnerships and Total Place. There have been reviews of services in silos and then again strategically, often in some form of consultation with users, or ‘deep dives’. In some places there has been discussion across councils, police, fire and health bodies who recognise they serve the same communities and users.

Now, there are major choices to be made to plan optimal savings over the next three years. It is time to review big contracts and redesign services to deliver priorities and return to the ‘too difficult’. Local authorities have a wide choice of new partners and forms of partnerships and collaborations to choose between, to help them. The pace of change is rapid in health, education, welfare, policing, social care and housing – and not always coherent, in helpful sequence or with same boundaries of ‘place.’

Local public partners should keep in close contact through the changes in commissioning and provision to maximise joint resources, avoid duplication and gaps and work constructively with the private and third sector. The landscape is changing quickly and is more varied. Revised

LSPs can continue to play a role in bringing partners together to build consensus and influence ‘place-shaping’ in revised thematic and neighbourhood level groupings, with fewer refocused activities, even though much of the funding for the delivery activity of LSPs fell away with the end of ring-fenced grants.

There is minimal guidance from central government - each authority must be clear of its aims at strategic level and for specific interest groups, communities or neighbourhoods and parishes. Many are shaping sub-regional partnerships such as the new Local Enterprise Partnerships alongside the private sector. Some are considering becoming part of the supply chain to the new Single Work Programme. With the new Public Health role coming, some want to actively support and partner the new GP commissioning consortia.

Members need keep strategic oversight and have a rationale for which services they jointly commission and when they jointly provide – and how they monitor such arrangements to ensure they stay cost effective and can be explained. The public are largely confused and mistrustful of both elected representatives and highly paid officers and are not consistent about cuts.

Improvements could come via more shared services with neighbouring or other bodies or with the private sector, or by actively developing spin-off mutuals from council staff. These options may not be quick or generate short-term savings though it is possible to plan a ‘golden thread’ – in health, education, social care – first developing a LA Trading company with support, capacity building and less exposure to open competition which can later become more independent. Further, in recent joint work with a

leading law firm across several local authorities, we are seeing the need for authorities to review where they have built up an incoherent pattern across different partners of joint officers and shared service vehicles.

With more choices and less funding, the key is thoughtful leadership that can take the opportunity to make savings redesign and new models of delivery and partnerships – and a consistent focus on users and engagement with the communities they serve.

Sarah Phillips is Deputy Director of the Centre for Public Service Partnerships@ LGiU which provides strategic advice and consultancy support on a range of issues linked to managing change, reviewing and developing local partnerships and alternative service models. sarah.phillips@lgiu.org.uk

22

SCOTlanD

Public health – no easy answers

Scotland has a reputation for poor health. A recent study concluded that Scots have the second lowest life expectancy of any

country in Western Europe. Portugal was the only country with a lower one.

It is easy to jump to simple conclusions about the cause. The Rab C Nesbitt life style of deep fried Mars Bars, booze and fags must be the problem, mustn’t it? In fact the explanation is much more complex. 100 years ago, Scotland had a higher life expectancy than the average for Western Europe. It began to fall behind only in the 1950s when the heavy industries of west central Scotland closed down. The significant ill health in Scotland is concentrated in the unemployed communities which still make up a large percentage of the Scottish population and their ill health cannot be fully accounted for by diet, smoking and alcohol. Nor, surprisingly, can the ill health be accounted for solely by poverty or income inequality.

A comparison of income distribution in three cities, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester, shows that income levels and distribution are very similar across the three populations. However, the pattern of mortality in Glasgow differs significantly from that seen in the other two cities. For all social groups, the risk of death is higher in Glasgow than in the other cities and, disturbingly, 60 per cent of the excess premature mortality in the Glasgow population is due to drug and alcohol related conditions, suicide, accidents and violence. These are psychosocially determined causes of death and will not be improved by encouraging the population to eat less saturated fat.

How do we influence the social and psychological drivers which underlie this pattern of mortality? Current evidence points strongly to the importance of experience in early life as a powerful feature in determining how we respond to adverse circumstances in adulthood. An American sociologist, Aaron Antonovsky studied the health of women in Israel who had endured the holocaust as children. 70 per cent had significant physical or mental health problems.

What, Antonovsky wondered, was protecting the other 30 per cent from the health consequences of such appalling experiences? He concluded that consistent, nurturing parenting experienced by the children before they went into concentration camps gave them the capacity to make sense of the things that were happening to them. It also gave them the resilience needed to cope with such adversity. Antonovsky described this capacity to understand and manage the events of one’s life as “having a sense of coherence.” Failure to develop a sense of coherence, he argued, would produce a state of chronic stress.

Extensive research has shown that chaotic, inconsistent parenting is associated with just the chronically altered stress responses Antonovsky predicted. The biological consequences of persistently elevated stress responses contribute to the elevated risks of heart disease, stroke and cancer seen in association with socially chaotic early lives.

How do we apply Antonovsky’s thinking to public policy? He argued that we can create physical and mental health through supporting consistency in parenting. Consistent responses by carers to a baby’s needs allow it to develop its ability to understand and influence events around it. And, indeed, children with a sense of coherence will do better at school and are more likely to be socially and occupationally successful. What do we do for those damaged by their experiences in their early years? Antonovsky would argue that a critical aspect of any intervention intended to develop health and well-being in later life should involve supporting

the development of a sense of control. We are not good a doing this.

The approach to health improvement usually adopted by the public sector in the UK focuses on filling deficits in the lives of individuals and communities. We design services to fill gaps in peoples’ lives and fix their problems. We leave them more disempowered than they were before we attempted to help them. Our usual approach encourages people to be passive recipients of services rather than active agents in their own lives. Antonovsky’s analysis should encourage us to develop those resources which enhance the ability of individuals, communities and populations to maintain their health and sustain wellbeing. We need to find ways to develop those assets which can act to protect against life’s stresses.

Public services, with 10 minute appointments, heavy workloads and its client based mentality are not good at developing the supportive relationships that help individuals grow internal assets. The people who do this best are the voluntary organisations and charities who are most attuned to the needs of people in difficulty. Switching from a model of meeting deficits to one of growing capacity and resilience will require a lot of help from the Third Sector.

John

Lin

die

Dr Harry Burns, Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, argues that our usual approach to public health encourages people to be passive recipients of services rather than active agents in their own lives. We need to find new

ways to improve health and well-being.

23

SCOTlanD

School dinners can be good for you

Roberta Sonnio argues that a political focus on food is no longer an option, it is an imperative and

councillors need to take a lead.

Political debates are increasingly emphasising the need to design development strategies that emphasize, rather than undermine,

the interdependence of economy, society and nature. Figures speak volumes for the urgency of the task. In the last quarter of the 20th century, while the global economy was doubling in size, an estimated 60 per cent of the world’s ecosystems have been degraded. Global carbon emissions have risen by 40 per cent since 1990. One fifth of the world’s population earns just 2 per cent of global income. And inequality in the OECD nations is higher than it was 20 years ago.

Food production and consumption are inextricably linked to our individual and communal health, to the integrity of our eco-systems, to our quality of life. Hence, political intervention on the various stages of the food chain means addressing multiple forms of deprivation.

All too often food has been treated as a commodity, subject to the laws of supply and demand. In the UK, the prevailing political discourse on public food procurement is informed by a narrow interpretation of the notion of “best value” and an even narrower interpretation of the EU regulations, which are commonly (and wrongly) cited as a barrier to local food sourcing.

At a time of new austerity and cuts, political will is helping the most far-sighted councillors to overcome imaginary obstacles and create a virtuous circle of sustainable growth. Pioneering councils are realising that a properly designed and managed school meal service, which reconnects local producers and consumers, can provide access to fresh and nutritious food to many children for whom the school meal is the main or even the only meal of the day. At the same time, it creates reliable markets for small producers who have too often been marginalized by the forces of globalization.

East Ayrshire has a powerful story to tell about the potential of school food as a positive catalyst for change. In this deprived rural area

of 120,000 people, where more than 6 per cent of households have no adult in employment and dependent children, an ambitious council is working in the spirit of joined-up thinking, using school meals as a tool to address health inequalities and halt rural de-population.

In 2004, East Ayrshire adopted a very creative bidding process that aimed to involve organic and small local suppliers into the school meal system. Some of the strict ‘straightness’ guidelines for class 1 vegetables were made more flexible to attract organic suppliers; the bidding contract was divided into as many as nine lots to enable small local suppliers to compete with larger national companies; and award criteria were equally based on price and quality – which rewarded suppliers’ proposed timescale from harvest to delivery, their capacity to supply Fair Trade, seasonal and ethnic foods, their contribution to biodiversity and their compliance with animal welfare standards.

This approach is producing important and tangible benefits. Environmentally, as a result of the council’s local sourcing approach, the

average distance travelled per menu item has decreased from 330 to 99 miles – cutting food miles by 70 per cent. Economically, the first 12 schools included in the initiative (there are now more than 40) delivered a multiplier effect of £160,000. Socially, the reform has increased citizens’ satisfaction with the service: 88 per cent of children stated they like fresh food and 77 per cent of parents believe that the scheme is a good use of the Council’s money.

These figures remind us that, contrary to prevailing perceptions that confine demand for quality products to middle-class consumers, even in deprived areas there is a genuine demand for healthy food. Most importantly, perhaps, they remind us that public food has the enormous potential to create a virtuous interplay between local economic development and social inclusion, bringing to the front the unique role of local authorities in shaping up new (and much needed) constituencies around the economic and socio-environmental goals of sustainable development.

Environmentally, as a result of the

council’s local sourcing approach,

the average distance travelled per menu item has decreased

from 330 to 99 miles – cutting food miles by

70 per cent

“

”

This discussion pamphlet explores how localism and strategic planning can work together. We know the future of local government over the next few years will be shaped by two forces: a drive towards localism and the need to achieve efficiencies and cut spending in a challenging financial context.

In this pamphlet, the LGiU argues that if we are to prevent these drivers from pulling us in opposing directions we will need a fundamental shift in the way we think about local service delivery and the relationship between people, places and power.

These publications can be downloaded free of charge from the LGiU website www.lgiu.org.uk

PeoPle Places Power:How localism and strategic Planning can work togetHer

Paying for itThe future of localgovernment financeThis collection of essays tackles one of the thorniest issues in public service – how to fund local government. The Coalition agreement included a commitment to a local government finance review and in the run up to this these essays put forward ideas, questions and areas for discussion that should frame this review.

The LGiU argues that real power means financial freedoms and that strong local democracy is about meeting community needs by weighing competing interests and priorities; resources are critical to this.

25

SCOTlanD

Scotland shares the painIain McKenzie reports on how Scottish local authorities have responded to the need for cuts and on how the Convention of

Scottish Local Authorities fought the councils’ corner.

When some of America’s largest financial companies alerted the world to their problems, the American government

stepped in with funding that seemed to stretch to the moon and back. The rest of the world braced themselves for a financial tsunami that threatened to wash away economies.

Aware of this background, I took over the position of Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla) spokesperson on Finance, and when the Chancellor announced £81 billion to be cut from government spending, undoubtedly easier times had been seen in this position.

These were cuts on an unprecedented scale. As a councillor I knew this would the most challenging round of budgeting I would ever be involved in.

A series of fortnightly meetings with the Scottish government was set up. Cosla’s priority was to secure an equal share for local government in the Scottish budget to be announced later in the year.

The funding filter system requires Westminster to set a UK wide budget which includes Scotland’s share. The Scottish government then announces its budget, after which the implications for Scottish local authorities would be known.

£1billion of cuts across Scotland was announced on 17 November 2010 by the Scottish Finance Secretary. Housing, education and tourism spending were all to be cut, while business rates would rise for large retailers. Efficiency savings with a 3 per cent target would be imposed across public services, and he also confirmed plans to introduce a pay freeze for public sector workers earning £21,000 a year or more. Also a package of agreements including a council tax freeze would have to be considered and agreed by each council before 21 December.

Cosla’s early warning had resounded across the country. Cuts would have to be made and belts tightened as never before. Steps would have to be taken immediately to bring about early savings and planning ahead for future savings.

Unilateral decisions were already being taken, with individual councils identifying immediate achievable savings, their low hanging fruit. Projects that had not yet started were put on hold. Reductions in staffing through various voluntary redundancy deals were implemented,

vacancies were left unfilled, and so the list of quick savings were identified and acted upon.

Other savings would have to be identified to bring about savings for future years budgeting. Some services would simply have to be delivered in other ways or they may not be delivered at all. Planning ahead was crucial.

Shared Services became the buzz word for all 32 councils.

One such project was using a single procurement source to maximise the spending power of local government. The pound simply had to stretch further than it had ever done, if savings on some of the largest spends were to be realised. Councils now brought their collective spending together to push for the best deals and most productive contracts.

The variety of commodities bought by councils is quite staggering, everything from paper clips to care services for the elderly. No other business is required to procure such a vast array of products. Many councils were finding their neighbours in some areas had better terms and conditions with suppliers for similar products or services. It was time to consolidate and collaborate in procurement. Procurement Scotland and Scotland Excel would now take on the challenge to deliver procurement savings based upon the collective spending of Scottish councils.

Savings could also be achieved by councils looking at their internal spend on employee development. Councils in the Clyde Valley area have now been working for some time on collaboration with employee training.

Clyde Valley Councils have produced online education courses that are relevant to all their employees. The online courses greatly reduce the cost of sending employees on expensive external courses. This joint working by Clyde Valley councils on internal education for employees will now be exported to other councils around Scotland. This will not only make a saving this coming year but in future years and still enable councils to develop their employees.

These are difficult times for councillors challenged to implement cutbacks whilst recognising and protecting priorities across their communities. With local government elections looming in Scotland in 2012, what will be the reaction of the public as the cutbacks start to bite? Will they blame those elected to higher office, recognising where the reduced funding came from, or will they blame councillors who have had to choose and implement the cuts?

Budgeting for councillors has never been this difficult.

Cosla’s priority was to secure an equal

share for local government in the

scottish budget to be announced later

in the year

“

”

26

C’llR aCHIEvEMEnT aWaRDS 2011

C’llr Achievement Awards 2011: The Winners

Judges faced a tough task to find the c’llr councillors of the year, following an impressive set of nominations.

But there had to be winners, and here they are...

CCLA Award for Outstanding Contribution to Financial PerformanceWinner: Cllr Maurice Hester, London Borough of Wandsworth

Cllr Heaster is described as the ‘driving force’ behind Wandsworth’s efficiency

and value for money for the past 25 years. As the Chair of the budget review process for all council departments, Cllr Heaster ensures a rigorous process of challenge and always seeks to find different approaches to service delivery to drive through value for money. The judges noted the great personal involvement of Cllr Heaster in Wandsworth’s financial achievements – a council that sets a benchmark for taking forward value for money. Cllr Heaster has set this agenda and seen it through over a long period of time. “He is a powerful figure in Wansdsworth and his control of money is absolute”.

Shortlisted: Cllr David Finch, Essex County Council; Cllr Roland Spencer, Gedling Borough Council; Cllr Robin Harris, Luton Borough Council; Cllr Paul Watson, Sunderland City Council; Cllr Maurice Heaster, London Borough of Wandsworth

Community ChampionWinner: Cllr Luthfur Rahman, Manchester City Council

Cllr Rahman has achieved a great deal since being elected – particularly in developing links with

communities that have been on the margins in Manchester. He is described as demonstrating an understanding of the different communities in the area in order to robustly represent their views to the council. Cllr Rahman has successfully bridged the differences between generations – all with a grass-roots led perspective. The judges felt Cllr Rahman was a deserving winner because of the speed with which he has made a difference, but also due to his ability to see the bigger picture, but with a community base.

Shortlisted: Cllr Joanne Beavis, Braintree District Council; Cllr Gill Farrington, South Derbyshire District Council; Cllr Chris Best, London Borough of Lewisham; Cllr Luthfur Rahman, Manchester City Council; Cllr Shirley Potts, South Gloucestershire Council

Young Councillor of the YearWinner: Cllr Becky Brunskill, Durham County Council

Elected in 2008 at the age of 20, Cllr Brunskill become Durham’s youngest ever councillor. In her time as a councillor her

achievements are many; she has established a youth-run café and a litter picking group, she secured investment from Home Housing, campaigned for transport needs for primary school children, which also included a motion to full council. The judges thought Cllr Brunskill had successfully shown that the best way to improve communities is by ‘doing’ and bringing people together to work as community activists. “Becky is a brilliant example of what a modern councillor can be”.

Shortlisted: Cllr James Alexander, City of York Council; Cllr Becky Brunskill, Durham County Council; Cllr Kyle Robinson, Newcastle Borough Council ; Cllr Ivan Jennings, Staffordshire County Council; Cllr Henri Murison, Newcastle City Council

27

New Councillor of the YearWinner: Cllr Sheila D’Souza, Westminster City Council

Since being elected in May 2010, Cllr D’Souza has brought dedication and passion to her work in championing the needs of her residents.

She has had a particular impact in a short space of time in successfully resolving residents’ concerns about a local train station and also been appointed as lead member for health scrutiny. Westminster is known for being a strong and well established authority and the judges felt that to make such a huge impact in a short space represents an incredibly impressive achievement.

Shortlisted: Cllr Bally Singh, Coventry City Council; Cllr Jennie Dallimore, Gloucester City Council; Cllr Van Coulter, Oxford City Council; Cllr Rob White, Reading Borough Council; Cllr Sheila D’Souza, Westminster City Council

Online Councillor of the YearWinner: Cllr James Barber, London Borough of Southwark

Highly Commended: Cllr Matthew Ellis, Staffordshire County Council

Cllr Barber’s use of online media demonstrates how councillors can engage citizens within their own space in order to make a difference in their communities. He has established a presence on a citizen-run neighbourhood website by engaging and responding positively to local people’s issues, providing information, giving responses from officers and inviting residents to submit their problems and questions to him.The judges felt that Cllr Barber’s achievements stood out because he has managed to assert himself on existing media that residents of his local area use – he has gone to them. The judges noted that “if social media is about anything, it is about being where people are” and this is an excellent example of this.

Shortlisted: Cllr Tim Cheetham, Barnsley Council; Cllr James Barber, London Borough of Southwark; Cllr Matthew Ellis, Staffordshire County Council; Cllr Catherine Lewis, Torfaen County Borough Council; Cllr Paul Cotterill, West Lancashire Borough Council

C’llR aCHIEvEMEnT aWaRDS 2011

Partnership Achievement of the YearWinner: Cllr Ray Franklin, East Devon District Council

Cllr Franklin has shown leadership in developing a series of major infrastructure

projects– projects which have brought together local authorities, private sector partners and regional agencies. Cllr Franklin has built strong relationships with these partners, which has led to planning permission for a number of projects and ensured that when projects were threatened by the recession he was able to build on strong public and private sector relationships to put together a financial package with partners to ensure that the project progressed.As a small district, such achievements are not easy but judges felt that Cllr Franklin had made a significant impact and personally took the agenda forward for planning and regeneration.

Shortlisted: Cllr Noel Spencer, Bolton Council; Cllr Lynn Riley, Cheshire West and Chester; Cllr Ray Franklin, East Devon District Council; Cllr Steve Morphew, Norwich City Council; Cllr Philip Atkins, Staffordshire County Council

Scrutineer of the YearWinner: Cllr Robert Parker, Lincolnshire County Council

Highly Commended: Cllr Imogen Walker, London Borough of Lambeth

Highly Commended: Cllr Elizabeth Rhodes, Wakefield Council

Cllr Parker has shown real leadership as chair of the value for money scrutiny committee, in what have been very testing times. He has had many achievements including taking the committee into the community on site visits. He has extended his impact beyond Lincolnshire by using his expertise in a peer support programme.The judges noted that this was an extremely difficult category to judge, as scrutiny can be used in so many different ways, but Cllr Parker stood out as he championed scrutiny to drive through value for money.

Shortlisted: Cllr Imogen Walker, London Borough of Lambeth; Cllr Robert Parker, Lincolnshire County Council; Cllr Robert Chapman, London Borough of Hackney; Cllr Alan White, Staffordshire County Council; Cllr Elizabeth Rhodes, Wakefield Council

Sustainability Champion of the YearWinner: Cllr Anthony Blagg, Worcestershire County Council

As a Member Sustainability Champion, Cllr Blagg has taken his role in championing sustainability

extremely seriously and taken sustainability right up the agenda in the council. His achievements are many and include leading the council’s successful bid for Beacon Status on tackling climate change and the introduction of an energy efficiency spend- to-save fund. Cllr Blagg has taken the sustainability ethos into his own life as well as championing the cause in the council – it is this passion and his achievements that particularly impressed the judges.

Shortlisted: Cllr Neil Harrison, Bristol City Council; Cllr Bob Young, Durham County Council; Cllr Susan Wise, London Borough of Lewisham; Cllr Colin Hall, London Borough of Sutton; Cllr Anthony Blagg, Worcestershire County Council

Leader of the YearWinner: Cllr Graham Baxter, North East Derbyshire District Council

Highly Commended: Cllr Sean Brennan, London Borough of Sutton

Cllr Baxter is described as ‘visionary’. Under his leadership the council went

from ‘weak’ to ‘excellent’ in the CPA, has undergone a massive organisational transformation, achieved efficiencies equivalent to 20% of the budget and developed a new strategic vision for the area. Evidence of Cllr Baxter’s contribution and leadership are also seen in the cultural transformation of the council; morale amongst staff is high and officer/member relationships are now close and mutually supportive. This was a tough category to judge as the shortlist was exemplary and each council had a strong story to tell. However the judges felt that of all the nominees Cllr Baxter’s leadership has brought about evidence of real transformation to the council. “He has really stepped up to the role of being leader and brought clear vision to the council”.

Shortlisted: Cllr Tricia Turner, Central Bedfordshire; Cllr Simon Henig, Durham County Council; Cllr Sean Brennan, London Borough of Sutton; Cllr Rod Bluh, Swindon Borough Council; Cllr Graham Baxter, North East Derbyshire District Council

Over the next year, we’ll be talking to each of the winners to find out more about their work.

28

lIvInG WaGE

Raising the standard

With money so tight, Sabine Virani asks whether this is this a mad time to be committing to pay a living

wage or absolutely the right time.

A living wage is an hourly wage that allows a full-time worker to earn the very minimum considered necessary to

participate in society: enough to pay for basic food, shelter, clothing, utilities, transport, education. It’s not about frills. UK living wage campaigners claim that the minimum wage – £5.93 from October 2010 – simply isn’t enough to live on. Minimum wage earners may be able to survive, but certainly not participate in modern Britain, much less thrive. Working full time on the minimum wage means living in poverty.

But while the benefits to the individual are clear, the societal benefits of a living wage may be less so. Yet raising wages for the lowest paid creates knock-on benefits for the wider community, both in terms of increased spend in the local economy, and in terms of a host of improved social outcomes.

There is also a clear business case to be made for paying a living wage. What is paid out in increased wages can be recouped in reduced staff turnover, reduced absenteeism and better quality output.

Councillors would be wise to consider the business benefits of paying fair wages, where many employers have found it cost neutral (and in some cases even an improvement to the bottom line) to raise wages for their lowest paid staff. According Sir Steve Bullock, mayor for Lewisham, “there’s also a more complex economic case, particularly relevant to local authorities, when a percentage of low paid staff live in your borough. When their wages are raised, they are likely to spend all of their extra earnings in the local economy. That has a multiplier effect.”

Resources:“Becoming a Living Wage Borough: A Guide for Local Authorities” by Lewisham Council. Includes a template motion for local authorities.

For a toolkit to use in within your communities: www.unison.org.uk/file/Living per cent20wage per cent20toolkit.doc

For more information on the Minimum Income Standard, used to establish a living wage outside of London, see www.minimumincomestandard.org/livingwage.htm

May 2008: Internal research revealed that no permanent staff at Lewisham Council were paid below the London living wage (LLW) and leave provision was (in most cases) above statutory requirements. However, it became apparent that staff employed by some contractors were paid at the minimum wage. A LLW policy was adopted.

June 2009: The mayor champions due consideration for implementing the LLW as each council contract comes up for re-tender. Each potential contractor is now required to submit a variable tender, with and without the cost of paying the LLW. If the LLW tender submission offers best value for money, the contract is awarded on that basis.

March 2010: Members of South London Citizens requested mayoral support on the LLW. The new green space maintenance and management contract was awarded following a variable tender submission.

April 2010: A key priority in the mayor’s election manifesto was to continue championing the LLW with contractors and other public bodies.

June 2010: The re-tendered cleaning contract included implementing the LLW.

September 2010: A number of homecare agencies were added to the Domiciliary Care Framework, with those appointed agreeing to pay the LLW to their employees.

December 2010: The mayor was presented with a Living Wage Beacon Award for his work on the LLW within Lewisham and beyond.

Further action: It is anticipated that all Lewisham contractors will be paying at least the LLW to their staff by late 2012.Yet the need for Lewisham, like all other authorities, to make substantial budget savings means that the implementation of the LLW within council contracts may be subject to challenge.

Lewisham

29

lIvInG WaGE

In the UK the living wage began to take off in 2004 in London, when the precursor to Citizens UK convinced Ken Livingston (and subsequently Boris Johnson) to support the concept. A growing number of London workers are benefiting, and the 2012 Olympics are set to be the first ever living wage games. Lewisham adopted a living wage policy in 2008. Elsewhere, Glasgow City Council launched the Glasgow living wage in 2009, upping the wages of the lowest earners on its own staff and inviting other local employers to do the same. Norwich City Council, which introduced its Low Wage Initiative in October 1990, has effectively been a living wage employer of its direct employees for 20 years.

At a time of public sector austerity, some will argue that this is not the time to fight for better wages. Others will disagree.

Steve Bullock says “Councils must be clear about both the benefits of a living wage, and the costs if they don’t.” According to Abigale Scott Paul of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, “The recession has hit those on low incomes hardest. The cost of a minimum budget is estimated to have risen by 38 per cent in the past ten years, due to steep rises in the price of food (up 37 per cent), bus fares (up 59 per cent), council tax (up 67 per cent) and some other essentials. But official inflation has only been 23 per cent in total over the same period.

Local authorities have a vital role to play by highlighting the issue, creating public debate, identifying partners and developing strategies. Councils also have an important role to play both as employers and as commissioners. Paying a living wage may be tricky with current

budget slashing, but lower wages and worse conditions are not a road to top quality services. Local authorities and their contractors must consider overall value for money – productivity, motivation, turnover – alongside wages.

This is an issue with multi-party support. On his first day in Downing Street, David Cameron said he wants to make sure his government looked after the worst off in this country. A fair wage is also consistent with the coalition’s ambitions for a fair society. Ed Milliband personally supports a living wage, and Labour councils are predominant among those that have adopted a living wage already. A living wage is part of the national Green Party manifesto.

Second, recognise that the living wage is a flexible tool. The JRF’s Minimum Income Standard can be a guide to a local living wage, but it’s not an absolute figure. Also, a living wage can be implemented in stages, over time.

Third, find out how others have achieved a living wage. See the case studies on Lewisham and Glasgow below, and see some of the resources listed in the box below.

Fourth, work with your community. While councils can play a vital role, living wage campaigns must also have a strong grassroots, community-based foundation. Public pressure is vital – third sector organisations, churches and trade unions are natural allies.

Austerity at a national level will have social and financial costs at a local level. How forthcoming cuts to public services might impact the poor is contested territory, and the coalition government is extremely sensitive to how it is perceived. This is a good time to act.

Glasgow Just as there is no one fixed hourly rate, there is no one model for implementing a living wage scheme. The model developed by Glasgow is very simple. Glasgow City Council determine a living wage for Glasgow to be £7. It began to pay this minimum to all its direct employees in March 2009 and declared itself a living wage employer.

The council then wrote to all local employers to introduce them to the concept of a living wage, inviting them to register if they wished to participate in the scheme. The council does not verify actual wage rates paid. All companies that returned the form were invited to a business reception several months later to celebrate their living wage status. Their company names and logos are put up on a special page of the council’s website.

Before launching its citywide living wage scheme, the council met with the small business community. Now, a number of small businesses in Glasgow participate in the scheme. Particularly in knowledge-based sectors, there are small businesses where all employees earn at least a living wage, and these businesses value being recognised as good employers in this regard.

As hosts to the 2014 Commonwealth Games, Glasgow declared these the first living wage Commonwealth Games. All contractors, vendors, etc associated with these games will be expected to pay the Glasgow living wage.

supe

rmov

ing

The 2012 Olympics are set to be the first ever living wage games

30

ElECTIOnS

The by-election, race and a new narrative

All political parties have lessons to learn from events surrounding the campaign trail for the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election – not

least the dangers of making an issue out of race, writes Jasmine Ali.

This by-election, the first since the coalition took power, was electrically charged from start to finish. Government policy on the

spending review, tuition fees and VAT all came under the spotlight as Labour candidate Debbie Abrahams campaigned on slogans opposing current cuts in public expenditure – “Wrong Tax Wrong Time” and “Wrong Cuts Wrong Time”.

Meanwhile national media were filled with predictions of a Lib Dem meltdown – which failed to materialise – and with rumours that the Tories were holding back to help their new found allies.

On the ground, a veritable army of canvassers filled the streets of Oldham East and Saddleworth, itself a classic Lancastrian clash of urban and rural stereotypes. Rows of narrow dense terraced streets with old-style ginnels, some occupied and some boarded up, sit close by semi-detached cottages, all surrounded by beautiful rolling hills. Last of the Summer Wine meets The Wire.

Not your typical setting for the hordes of Westminster faces navigating the winding roads to join the campaign trail. Representatives from every political persuasion jostled for position on the narrow pavements. Among them were all the main party leaders, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. Local people took full advantage by engaging all campaigners on local and national issues. Throughout the cold, rainy and snowy January both local and national politics was debated at the doorsteps, in the shops and on the pavements.

Yet this by-election had a murky back-story, and was called after former Labour Immigration Minister Phil Woolas was found guilty of deliberately lying about his rival Elwyn Watkins. Woolas used election leaflets to accuse his Lib Dem opponent of soliciting the support of Muslim extremists; he also claimed Watkins had not moved into the constituency. Neither claim could be substantiated. Not only did Woolas lose his seat for this – he was widely criticised for stoking up racial fears in Oldham, the scene of riots in 2001.

Surprising to some, then, when this situation was again aggravated by the comments of

Labour’s former Home and Foreign Secretary minister Jack Straw. Less than one week before the 13 January election day conclusion, Straw specifically linked British Pakistani men to child sexual exploitation and called for a Parliamentary inquiry into the issue of grooming. Straw’s comments were unsubstantiated and later undermined by research from Child Protection On Line (CEOP). But the impact was fast as BNP campaigners took to the streets shouting out Straw’s words through their megaphones.

Labour supporters worked hard to shake off this criticism – as the outcome of the by-election has shown. But the lessons remain. Any attempts to detrimentally raise race as an election issue must be avoided. It will almost certainly blow up in your face – as was the case with both Woolas and Straw. And more important still, it can give encouragement to those who would intimidate our Asian communities.

When it came, the result showed voters were ultimately unconcerned with the antics of the far

right and were firmly focused on the big national picture and the cuts in particular. And most important to note was how voter behaviour reflected the reshaping of UK politics.

Both coalition parties maintained their independence and there was no formal agreement between the two coalition parties. But the actions of voters took firm account of governmental reality. Tory voters transferred their preferences and votes to the once despised Lib Dems, whose vote held up far better than had been feared.

In less than one year the face of politics in this country has been transformed. The new coalition politics has locked the Lib Dems into what Douglas Alexander MP, Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary calls a “narrative of the centre right”. The new politics may strengthen the coalition – but will leave the Liberals’ centre left without a home. And there is only one opposition party at a time when government policy is highly unpopular, even before its effects have been fully felt.

Any attempts to detrimentally raise race as an election issue must be avoided. it will almost

certainly blow up in your face“

”

Counting the votes in the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election

Dave

Tho

mps

on/P

A W

ire

anOTHER vIEW

Pickles in a pickle?Dave Wilcox thinks that after a bullish start as Secretary of State, Eric Pickles is playing

risky game by alienating some of his natural supporters in local government.

When Eric Pickles made his first speech as the new Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

at the annual LGiU All Party Parliamentary Local Government Group (APPG) reception I made a brief response.

“Secretaries of State come, and Secretaries of State go, but Secretaries of State never miss this meeting as it’s an important gathering in the local government calendar.” I ventured.

“Well that’s a nice introduction.” a confident Eric growled good-naturedly, to a chorus of laughter.

By the time of the LGA conference he was still buoyant. Nevertheless he appeared disconcerted by the speech from LGA Liberal leader Richard Kemp which preceded his own somewhat confusing contribution.

But give him his due. Having travelled down standard class to Bournemouth, he stayed at the conference for much longer than any of his predecessors and was in listening mode.

Many opponents describe Eric as a buffoon. But like Ian Greenwood, the Mayor in waiting of Eric’s former fiefdom of Bradford (where Pickles was leader for 18 months), I take a very different view. His capacity to coin a phrase for the Red Tops is unsurpassed and his populist instinct rivals that of an on-form Dennis Skinner. Like Skinner however, he appears ill at ease with Lib Dems, who in local government have been vociferous critics.

So it came as no surprise when as a Christmas greeting, Richard Kemp joked that Eric and his CLG colleague Grant Shapps were acting like “Laurel and Hardy.”

I don’t doubt Eric’s commitment to localism, though we might argue on the detail. Unfortunately, this commitment is contradicted by CLG’s constant reminders that bins should be emptied weekly, that council newspapers should number no more than four per year and that chief executives should be paid less than the Prime Minister.

Until December he seemed to have the support of most Tory local government leaders. However, by the New Year there was evidence of a mood

His initial denial that the proposed local government

settlement was front loaded damaged his

credibility

swing. His initial denial that the proposed local government settlement was front loaded damaged his credibility.

At the Local Government Select Committee soon afterwards, he delighted in revealing that LGA leaders had been dumfounded at his suggestion that if local government wanted to borrow more to cover redundancy costs, he would deduct the borrowing from the settlement. He seemed unaware that the two are completely unrelated.

Then came his greatest gaff. He claimed that local authorities are swimming in reserves, which they could use to cushion the cuts and save front line services. It was a claim compounded by an accompanying list which vastly over-exaggerated the level of reserves and caused very considerable resentment not only from Labour councils, but also from Lib Dems and the Conservative Shires.

Lest you think I exaggerate, such was the resentment in one County that the leader fired off a despairing missive to the Secretary of State.

“Highlighting just the headline reserves is playing into the hands of our local Labour Opposition and the trade unions.” he wrote. “Clearly it’s the economics of the madhouse but they both constantly claim that we can use ‘oneoff’ reserves to avoid the budget reductions.”

“Economics of the madhouse” was exactly what Eric was proposing.

So the acid test for the secretary of State is can he maintain his position given new levels of public and semi-private criticism from his own party?

“He seems to delight in throwing a grenade and watching how people react.” confided a senior Tory recently.

Famously too he takes no prisoners, so the chances of critics being on the DCLG Christmas card list this year are zilch.

As a patient Eric is on the critical list. Many Conservative local government grandees are

not happy bunnies.My own estimate is that he’ll be at the summer APPG Reception, but I

wouldn’t put money on his staying in charge after the coalition’s first serious reshuffle which is probably due around Autumn 2011.

In the meantime we know that life in local government will never be boring as long as Eric Pickles is in town with his

rocket launcher.

“

”

31

pOSTCaRD FROM San FRanCISCO

Mad about mayors

They are used to mayors in the US. And somehow Chris Mead makes them sound much more interesting that the UK version.

Well, he’s gone; Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Francisco, has resigned to become California’s Lieutenant (as

in lootenant) Governor. “What!” I hear you cry “Glamorous Gavin is replacing Arnold?” Not exactly, Jerry Brown, aka Governor Moonbeam, is taking that role. In theory Gavin is second in command and he will indeed take over when the governor leaves the state. The rest of the time he will undertake important roles such as chairing the Agriculture-Water Transition Task Force. I believe he also turns out the lights in the Capitol Building.

Why switch from being mayor of a world-famous city to an obscure post that is the regular butt of jokes? Well, he was in a bind: the mayor of San Francisco is a directly elected post that is limited by city law to two terms and there were only a couple of years left. The next step up the ladder should have been for Gavin to head to Sacramento as governor or pack his Gucci bags for Washington D.C and become a US senator. Unfortunately for our would-be Gavinator

Jerry Brown’s well-financed campaign won the gubernatorial nomination and California’s two senators ain’t budging.

This is a bit sad. As recently as 2004 Newsom was listed as one of the rising young stars in the Democratic Party. (Others on the list have had mixed success. They include Eliot “Client Nine” Spitzer and a young senator from Illinois named Obama.) Still, Gavin is only 43 and may yet make it further up the slippery pole.

Regardless, running a city is often the stepping-stone to higher office, so I was intrigued to read that the UK is thinking of creating more directly elected mayors. Here in San Francisco we have a strong-mayor government – sounds terribly butch, doesn’t it? Gavin had a large staff with several departments such as education and housing under his direct control. The Board of Supervisors crafts legislation but the mayor has the power of veto, which can lead to conflict. The Supes, who are elected by district, are as diverse as the city they serve and their politics range, as one wag put it, from Democratic to Dada.

The resulting tension can occasionally lead to, gasp, good government. Fr’instance the city recently debated putting in a bid to host the next America’s Cup. The mayor, giddy with the vision of swelling spinnakers on the Bay, was clearly willing to hock the Golden Gate Bridge to seal the deal but the Board took a more sanguine view. Eventually a compromise tender was hammered out that succeeded in bringing the race to San Francisco in 2013 with a yummy $1.4 billion in economic benefits.

Another advantage of having elected mayors is that you can give them the bum’s rush, and if you cannot wait for the next election you can always clobber them with that most of dreaded of political devices, a recall. It’s a two-step tango: to get the tumbrils rolling you first gather a petition of registered voters – in some cities 3%

of the electorate is sufficient. (Don’t tell me, dear reader, you can’t find one grumpy old devil in any group of thirty voters in your constituency.) Once the petition is accepted a special election is scheduled that requires a 50% vote to eject the incumbent. And one misstep can be enough, just ask Daniel Varela, former mayor of the California city of Livingstone. Dan was foolish enough to support the first rise in the town’s water rates in a decade. Six months later he was sitting on the sidewalk surrounded by cardboard boxes. Rough justice, but it focuses any would-be mayor’s mind on the wishes of the electorate.

Of course, all that power vested in one person can have pitfalls. Let’s not forget toupee-sporting Vincent “Buddy” Cianci, former mayor of Providence, Rhode Island. Having completed a five-year stretch resulting from the FBI’s aptly-named Operation Plunder Dome Vinnie can again be found in his natural habitat in the back of a limo. The city of Waterbury in Connecticut holds some sort of record with three mayors dispatched to the slammer.

Sometimes things can get really out of hand. Step forward Bell, California, a municipality of 38,000 souls located near Los Angeles. Last year two reporters from the LA Times discovered that the city administrator, one Robert Rizzo, was making an eye-watering $1.5 million for a job that included 28 weeks of vacation and sick leave. Council members declared themselves “sickened” by this revelation. I mean, who knew? Perhaps their horror was assuaged by the fact that each of them was earning $100,000 a year for their part-time efforts, approximately 20 times the national average. It goes on; Rizzo and the other officials charged with corruption want the city to pay their legal bills.

But on balance I would go for it, dear reader; let’s see a bit more democracy and accountability at the town hall. Just keep an eye out for the ceremonial mace in the pawnshop window.

22 Upper Woburn Place, London WC1H OTB020 7554 2800 • cllr@lgiu.org.ukFOR COUNCILLORS FROM THE LGIU