Random acts of localism risk damaging services

This week I found myself discussing localism at one of the UK’s local government representative bodies.  I think they found me slightly off message.

Localism is a major thrust of government policy, of course, enshrined in the Coalition agreement.   Accordingly the Government has devolved a lot of decision making to local councils over the last two and half years, not least responsibility for delivering a bigger than average share of the austerity package.

After thirty-something years in local government I am a convinced localist. I believe there are some decisions that should be made as close to communities as possible, and if possible by and within communities themselves.   It follows, I think, that we have to be prepared to accept some of what the media calls ‘the postcode lottery’ – although if local democracy works properly, ‘lottery’ is not the right word for it.  Postcode Fair and Transparent Local Decision Making doesn’t make for such good headlines though, does it?

There is also a strong argument that local government in England has become too reliant on central government and some transfer of responsibility down the line, along with clear accountability is not a bad thing. 

Where local government needs to be careful is around the growing idea – you might call it ‘radical localism’ - that localism is good for its own sake.  The reason is that along with the power and responsibility, devolved decision making comes a big slug of risk handed down from central to local government which local communities need to be able to take on and manage.

In English local government over the years we have had a ‘new burdens protocol’, which is supposed to make sure that newly devolved responsibilities are properly funded.  No surprise that austerity has seen that largely discontinued.   The new ‘Council Tax Support Scheme’ duty that now falls on Councils, which replaces the national Council Tax Benefit scheme, comes with a 10% grant cut. 

The outcome of all this risk transfer is extra cost for local authorities. But dealing with risk is not cost free, and when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government muses that local authorities have increased their reserves since his party came into power, a big part of the answer, I’m afraid, is government policy.  Risk has to be deal with somewhere within the system and if not by central government, it falls to local government to pick it up. 

That is exactly the opposite of the view of central government as the funder of last resort, and if the government bats problems to local government that are too big for it manage efficiently, then a lot of much needed funding will remain tied up in reserves and contingencies, to the potential detriment of local services. 

Within my own local authority, I have a number in mind which I think will be the level of cash savings we need to make over the first six or seven years of austerity.   I also have it in mind that that number could be 20% bigger if some big risks land, and the larger ones are to do with government policy – such as welfare reform and school places for 2 year olds- rather than directly to do with world economic conditions. 

We need localism, because we need clear accountability over services that respond to peoples’ needs: we need central government because some problems are too big for Councils to handle.   But between the two parts we need a proper localist protocol; a settlement that makes it clear (or at least a lot clearer) who is responsible for what under what circumstances.   Random acts of localism obscure accountability, add to the funding problems of local authorities, and in so doing risk taking more money away from local services than the government intends.