As the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and Autumn Statement loom ever closer in our sights, local government and much of the public sector are bracing themselves for more and ever deeper cuts. Local government has taken very disproportionate cuts from the Government since 2010 and most commentators expect this to be the case over the rest of this Parliament. Even the offer of the retention of business rates and some further devolution of competencies will significantly fall short of making up for the draconian cuts to government grants. And increased demand for services will simply compound the challenge faced by the vast majority of local authorities, although the magnitude of the cuts to come will vary from authority to authority. Of course, local authorities are not alone. Their public sector partners including the NHS and schools, which ministers interestingly claim are both being protected, the police and other local services are facing major financial challenges too. Places and people who live in them will be the poorer as a result of the cuts to come. They will have fewer services to use or protect them and, consequently, their opportunities may all too often be dented.
Local government has a fundamental duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well- being of the people who live in its area. It also has a responsibility to show leadership and do its upmost to protect and promote the interests of the place, its civil society, local businesses and citizens. Basically, it has to co-ordinate and ‘shape’ the way that the rest of the public sector operates in and impacts on its place. Responses to the forthcoming CSR and local government funding announcements have to be political. After all, the CSR and funding decisions are political – requiring political not merely technocratic responses. I expect local authority leaders of whatever political persuasion to be ready to speak out and to speak up for their place and their communities. I urge them to explain clearly what the Government is doing to their funding and its implications for services, employment and the local economy – remembering that reduced public sector employment in a place means less spending in that place and less public procurement of goods and services means less economic activity too. These cuts will, in most cases, have a significant negative multiplier effect on local economies and local businesses. Local authorities must undertake ‘objective’ economic analysis of this impact – and then publicise it. Local authority leaders and the various national local government bodies should politically challenge the Government’s programme and make the case for local public services.
They should also be ready and willing to argue for alternatives including, I suggest, a fairer and more progressive approach to taxation and deficit reduction. Very sadly, I do recognise the reality that cuts are inevitable because of Government policy. However, in response, council leaders cannot and must not contemplate failing to set legal budgets. This will simply result in them losing power, and their communities having to take even greater cuts. Accordingly, when addressing a budget reduction or cuts programme, council leaders must be clear about their political priorities and objectives. Ideally, they should have consulted the public and other stakeholders about this in advance. They also require an excellent standard of officer advice and analysis, including benchmark statistics and access to ideas from other authorities and indeed internationally (and if they do not feel they have officers who cannot offer this I suggest they do something about it, fast). Ultimately, however, decisions, painful though they may be, must be made by the accountable politicians. These decisions must be made with the best possible assessment and forecast of their impact, and always being tested against the prevailing local political objectives.
And such assessments should be transparent and published, as should the rationale for any budget adjustment – up, or more likely down. Values matter too, and politicians should not be afraid to talk about and be openly seen to be guided by them. Few councillors entered local politics specifically to make cuts, but they should still hold on to their guiding principles, to offer protection to those most vulnerable and in need. Good political leadership will be demonstrated by those leaders who consult on options, seek advice and ideas from the public and stakeholder groups and seek to plan budgets jointly with their public sector partners. They should consider a ‘total place’ approach and mindset so that all public sector resources are used in the most effective way rather than necessarily in the interests of any one institution. They should also always consider the right balance of public sector activity – for example, supporting business growth can be as important as child care, but there is a balance to be struck between such competing demands on limited resources. Local political leaders must also take a long term view, especially when they are considering programmes of prevention, and also when cutting – there is no public value in making a ‘saving’ today, only to be faced with increased expenditure requirements in the longer-term. ‘Joined-up’ thinking, and a ‘long-term’ perspective are required.
In recent discussions with local voluntary and community sector leaders from across the country, I have been deeply disappointed to learn how few of them and the organisations they represent have been invited by council leaders to discuss budget strategies. This must be rectified. Local voluntary and community sector (VCS) bodies should be natural participants when needs, objectives and priorities, options and budget allocations (including cuts) are being considered. The same applies to local businesses, and so too, the trade unions representing public service workers should always be involved. But note – when any stakeholders are involved in this way, their independence and right to challenge needs to be recognised and respected. They should not be forced to sign up to what they do not support and they must always have the courage to resist being press-ganged. The VCS in particular should be seen as being a vital ‘voice’ for communities and service users, as much and often more than being seen as merely potential service providers.
There should also be an exploration of how they might be able to help address needs through the design and delivery of services – often in ways that do not simply replicate what the public sector has done before. And when this happens, the sector must be allowed to set out what it is both willing and able to do, and on what commercial and financial terms. Even in these barren times, local authorities should be ready and willing to grant aid the voluntary and community sector, usually through a council for voluntary service or similar, to enable able the sector’s contribution to budget and strategic planning. Whatever budgets councils set over the next few years, unpopular decisions and actions will be taken. For all the talk about greater efficiency, shared services, shared teams, innovation and the so often misused and abused term of ‘transformation’, there will be cuts to core services, with many actually disappearing. This scenario requires bold and resolute leadership focused on outcomes, political priorities and values. But note that values matter most, and any political leader’s compass should always be based on them I do not envy council leaders, but I know that the best of them will show exemplar leadership that their communities and places deserve, and so desperately need.