LOCAL AUTHORITY: A
HISTORICAL VIEW
Do we have a rose tinted view of Local Authority power that is
influenced by the ‘great’ civic leaders of bygone days? Days when social and public programmes
benefited business and councils,
controlled by the ‘great and the good’. Business leaders with a conscience
developed centres of administration, Council Houses (Civic Centres) and Town
Halls, to celebrate and remind people of the growing power and influence of
local administrators and ‘benefactors’.
These benefactors however, were becoming more dependent on
central funding for their growing projects, a dependency that would ultimately
curtailing their ability to act ‘locally’.
Over the past 30 years the role of Local Authority as a
‘delivery’ vehicle for national programmes has increased, while its role as
local benefactor and innovator has all but disappeared. Local Authorities are
now highly dependent on National Government funding through grant settlements
and specific project / programme funding.
The provision of gas and electric were the first major
services to be removed, long time ago, followed, over the years, by water,
busses and post 16 education (FE Colleges). Social care, for children and
adults have been eroded, as has the Council's role in statutory education.
It could be argued that the Housing Finance Act 1972 was one
of the first national acts that impacted on local delivery / services.
Municipal housing was no longer just a local issue - it was now governed by
national legislation. Local Authorities were ‘forced’ to raise rents to fund
their new, nationally imposed, responsibilities. While rent strikes followed as
well as Councillors being disbarred for not complying with legislation (Cley
Cross), the principle had been set. Not only were Local Authorities dependent
on Central Government for major infrastructure developments, they also had to
‘do as they were told’ in what were seen as local services and provision.
LOCAL INITIATIVES,
CENTRAL CONTROL BYPASSING LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Moving forward to the coalition government, over the last 5
years the centralisation of government initiatives has increased, exacerbating,
and in some cases undermining, Local
Authority initiatives. Localism become the
mantra of the coalition government - central government pilots, vanguard
projects and initiatives all but eroded local authority initiated activities,
if not completely to the point of irrelevance, then very close to it.
There is, however, a dichotomy in the methodology of the
coalition and in the current administration. How do you reduce the services
delivered through the public realm, especially Local Authority, while
increasing local engagement and involvement within the decision making and
localisation of services, actively engaging residents in planning services for
their community?
The variety of initiatives developed that promoted the
‘locally led’ ethos of the Government continued to undermine the role of
democratically accountable local authorities in strategic planning and
development. From small neighbourhood management pilots to the development of
academies, these were promoted as methods of developing delivery that are
‘managed’ locally. Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), have been created and
given the responsibility of economic growth and are led by local businesses.
Health and Social care are growing increasingly closer together, potentially
dominated by Health trusts, locally managed, with some delivery in the private
sector. These are all funded through central programmes, removing a layer of
accountability, and management. How will the creation of the West Midlands
Combined Authority sit with these developments? Will it be any different to the
current structure, will it have to work across LEP areas and remain totally dependent
on national government funding for major infrastructure projects.
While there has been no overt statement concerning the
reduction /removal / demise in the role of current Local Authorities, the
fiscal reduction of budgets managed by Councils, and the subsequent reduction
in staff, together with the centralised focus on regeneration initiatives and
competitive element introduced to infrastructure programmes, does not bode
well.
WHERE IS THE ROLE OF
THE TRADITIONAL VCS IN ALL THIS?
If we accept that, in the future, large, local infrastructure
projects could be undertaken without recourse to raising the finance locality,
business led, by-passing traditional local democratically accountable
processes, then we have to ask what is the future for Voluntary and Community
Organisations (VCS), community focused and infrastructure?
If national programmes are to be developed and delivered,
with a local focus, by financially and ‘democratically’ accountable bodies,
with established and accepted governance procedures, who is going to deliver
them? Local VCS organisations, small community groups that have some
accountability to local process and members
or larger Academies and Housing Associations that are neither responsible
nor accountable to local democratic bodies but are more than capable of
applying, developing and delivering centralised government projects – on a
local basis?
No comments:
Post a Comment