There are three principal inflationary cost pressures bearing down on all-purpose and county councils, namely, looked-after children, adult care and looming EU landfill taxes.
In an age of austerity, when the public must take a role in prioritising the services they want, it still remains difficult to give them the option of cutting children’s and adult services.
However, the third cost pressure, landfill taxes, is another matter. Quite simply, residents should be asked two questions – do they believe dumping rubbish in the ground at ever-rising cost and then having their council be fined for missing EU targets is a sensible way of spending taxpayers’ money? If not, will they accept the building of energy-from-waste plants in their locality to burn the rubbish instead of landfilling it?
The chief executive of waste company, Sita, believes a ‘time bomb’ is ticking over the current situation in which only 50% of applications for waste-to-energy facilities are approved (see story, page 3). Residents dislike the idea of incinerators in their neighbourhoods, even though countries such as Denmark and Sweden have been using them for years. Councils turn down the applications in response, thereby merely postponing the problem. The scrapping of the Infrastructure Commission removes any strategic approach to waste disposal policy, leaving it exposed to the localised lobbying power of residents.
The issue is not merely about waste or energy, important as they are. It is about the public taking responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Localism cannot only be about the devolution of power to small groups of residents to exploit for their own advantage. Localism is the very opposite of NIMBY-ism. To use the cliché, with power must come responsibility.
The days of the public passively receiving services from an all-pervasive local authority are over. They are now part of local governance, in some cases, under Big Society, even set to assume services previously operated by the council. And when it comes to strategic decisions, including reducing landfill and avoiding swingeing charges, the public can no longer ostrich-like hide their heads in the sand and avoid participating in the difficult decisions.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
A clever move on pensions
The trade unions’ apparent willingness to compromise on the emotive issue of public sector pensions could well turn out to be a master stroke as the Government grapples with how to reduce its long-term liabilities on retirement.
Both the GMB and Unison have sent out signals that they may be prepared to accept a local government pension scheme linked to employees’ career earnings rather than the current final salary.
The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), being funded by staff and employers is not such a bottomless pit as unfunded schemes like the civil service and the NHS.
Contrary to some reports, the typical pension is £4,000 a year, reflecting the fact that most of the local government workforce is modestly paid and increasingly part-time.
It is true, however, that a small proportion of senior staff retire on extremely good pensions and that in the recent past, many council executives have been managed out of their authorities on very generous early retirement packages. Being a final salary scheme, the LGPS has potentially huge liabilities, and the workforce, as in the private sector, is living longer.
It is also unfair that while private sector final salary schemes have almost entirely dried up, the public sector continues to enjoy guaranteed final benefits underwritten by the taxpayer.
Furthermore, with the retirement age sensibly, if belatedly, rising to reflect the fact that we are all living longer, the LGPS, too, needs to increase its own retirement age.
Nonetheless, the idea that local government staff should also be impoverished in old age just so they can look the private sector in the eye makes no sense either. It is not their fault that private sector employers have withdrawn from open-ended pension commitments.
The reality is that the current baby-boomer generation has pulled up the drawbridge behind it by declining to fund the next generation’s pensions.
The task of government is to protect pensioners as best it can, public or private. The unions’ offer to accept a career-based scheme should help persuade ministers the LGPS can, and should maintain its commitments to provide a decent pension for staff.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Both the GMB and Unison have sent out signals that they may be prepared to accept a local government pension scheme linked to employees’ career earnings rather than the current final salary.
The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), being funded by staff and employers is not such a bottomless pit as unfunded schemes like the civil service and the NHS.
Contrary to some reports, the typical pension is £4,000 a year, reflecting the fact that most of the local government workforce is modestly paid and increasingly part-time.
It is true, however, that a small proportion of senior staff retire on extremely good pensions and that in the recent past, many council executives have been managed out of their authorities on very generous early retirement packages. Being a final salary scheme, the LGPS has potentially huge liabilities, and the workforce, as in the private sector, is living longer.
It is also unfair that while private sector final salary schemes have almost entirely dried up, the public sector continues to enjoy guaranteed final benefits underwritten by the taxpayer.
Furthermore, with the retirement age sensibly, if belatedly, rising to reflect the fact that we are all living longer, the LGPS, too, needs to increase its own retirement age.
Nonetheless, the idea that local government staff should also be impoverished in old age just so they can look the private sector in the eye makes no sense either. It is not their fault that private sector employers have withdrawn from open-ended pension commitments.
The reality is that the current baby-boomer generation has pulled up the drawbridge behind it by declining to fund the next generation’s pensions.
The task of government is to protect pensioners as best it can, public or private. The unions’ offer to accept a career-based scheme should help persuade ministers the LGPS can, and should maintain its commitments to provide a decent pension for staff.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Wednesday, 4 August 2010
Planning for the long term
This week’s attack by the right-of-centre think-tank, the Centre for Social Justice on chancellor George Osborne’s spending cuts for taking a ‘blunderbuss’ approach has resonance across local government.
The centre claims the temptation by Whitehall is to cut the easy targets, however effective they are and however many savings they deliver long term, leaving the more difficult but often inefficient programmes in place.
Another often-used phrase is for central and local government, when facing stringent cuts, to ‘go for the low-hanging fruit’. This is a euphemism for cutting area grants to community projects, dropping non-statutory services, squeezing the voluntary sector, postponing road maintenance, or as we have seen this week in Oxfordshire, slashing road safety initiatives, closing branch libraries, indeed, shutting any projects which yield quick savings with minimal upheaval. Most of them have a direct effect on the public, if in varying degrees.
If cuts are carried out in an atmosphere of panic and with no strategic rationale, then the result will be waves of negative local media, disgruntled residents and a council which has trimmed its services but remained largely intact as an organisation.
To complicate the cuts agenda, the public sector is also under pressure not to incur big, upfront redundancy costs. One chief executive recently told me: ‘I need to scale down the department but the redundancy costs mean I wouldn’t get any payback for three years, so there’s no point in doing it.’ The public will take a dim view of councils slashing services on the one hand but maintaining tiers of middle managers because they cannot afford to let them go.
The more far-sighted councils are already looking at the longer-term picture. Short-term cuts become longer-term ‘decommissioning.’ Councillors bury their territorial differences, such as the innovative tie-up between Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire, to deliver savings, districts share their management teams, and who knows, one day even their councillors.
What councils must not do, as they prepare to take on wider responsibilities across the public sector, is to destroy their credibility among their residents by cutting the low-hanging fruit and avoiding the more difficult – and more long-term – organisational changes necessary to cope with the next four years
The centre claims the temptation by Whitehall is to cut the easy targets, however effective they are and however many savings they deliver long term, leaving the more difficult but often inefficient programmes in place.
Another often-used phrase is for central and local government, when facing stringent cuts, to ‘go for the low-hanging fruit’. This is a euphemism for cutting area grants to community projects, dropping non-statutory services, squeezing the voluntary sector, postponing road maintenance, or as we have seen this week in Oxfordshire, slashing road safety initiatives, closing branch libraries, indeed, shutting any projects which yield quick savings with minimal upheaval. Most of them have a direct effect on the public, if in varying degrees.
If cuts are carried out in an atmosphere of panic and with no strategic rationale, then the result will be waves of negative local media, disgruntled residents and a council which has trimmed its services but remained largely intact as an organisation.
To complicate the cuts agenda, the public sector is also under pressure not to incur big, upfront redundancy costs. One chief executive recently told me: ‘I need to scale down the department but the redundancy costs mean I wouldn’t get any payback for three years, so there’s no point in doing it.’ The public will take a dim view of councils slashing services on the one hand but maintaining tiers of middle managers because they cannot afford to let them go.
The more far-sighted councils are already looking at the longer-term picture. Short-term cuts become longer-term ‘decommissioning.’ Councillors bury their territorial differences, such as the innovative tie-up between Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire, to deliver savings, districts share their management teams, and who knows, one day even their councillors.
What councils must not do, as they prepare to take on wider responsibilities across the public sector, is to destroy their credibility among their residents by cutting the low-hanging fruit and avoiding the more difficult – and more long-term – organisational changes necessary to cope with the next four years
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
The picture is getting clearer
As MPs break up for the summer after the most febrile political 10-week period in at least a decade, is there a picture emerging of the coalition government’s attitude towards local authorities?
Until a couple of weeks ago, I would have said it was confused. But, just as we were trying to make sense of [communities secretary] Eric Pickles’ provocative comments to the LGA conference – and in The MJ – about chief executive non jobs and [housing minister] Grant Shapps’ broadside against councillors’ expenses, up popped the health White Paper.
To those sceptics who believed the Department of Health would never yield an inch to local government, the White Paper was an eye-opener, promising new responsibilities. This was confirmed when Mr Pickles joined health secretary, Andrew Lansley, in an official launch last week, just to emphasise the joint role.
This week, Mr Pickles followed it with a speech to the LGA which, apart from his inadvertent leak about super-mayors in the forthcoming localism Bill, was stuffed with olive branches.
Referring to place-based budgeting, he said he ‘loved the idea’ but not the name, and criticised Total Place for not going far enough. He ended his address with: ‘I absolutely trust local government to deliver.’
Simultaneously, across Parliament Square, a few hundred metres away, decentralisation minister, Greg Clark, was also saying nice things about local government to a think-tank seminar. Indeed, when he was asked by one sceptic in the audience whether or not local government was ‘a large part of the problem’ in blocking community enterprise, he denied it, saying there was ‘a metropolitan snobbery about the idea that local government was resistant to change.’ Actually, he said, it had performed much better than Whitehall.
Both ministers made it plain that councils don’t need to wait to be told what to do by Whitehall or, as Mr Pickles exhorted; ‘Over the summer, just get on and do it.’ Do what is another question.
Many councils might well say, ‘make cuts’ or ‘batten down the hatches’ or ‘lay off staff.’ But at least the ministers have made their message clearer: The ball is in local government’s court. Use it.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Until a couple of weeks ago, I would have said it was confused. But, just as we were trying to make sense of [communities secretary] Eric Pickles’ provocative comments to the LGA conference – and in The MJ – about chief executive non jobs and [housing minister] Grant Shapps’ broadside against councillors’ expenses, up popped the health White Paper.
To those sceptics who believed the Department of Health would never yield an inch to local government, the White Paper was an eye-opener, promising new responsibilities. This was confirmed when Mr Pickles joined health secretary, Andrew Lansley, in an official launch last week, just to emphasise the joint role.
This week, Mr Pickles followed it with a speech to the LGA which, apart from his inadvertent leak about super-mayors in the forthcoming localism Bill, was stuffed with olive branches.
Referring to place-based budgeting, he said he ‘loved the idea’ but not the name, and criticised Total Place for not going far enough. He ended his address with: ‘I absolutely trust local government to deliver.’
Simultaneously, across Parliament Square, a few hundred metres away, decentralisation minister, Greg Clark, was also saying nice things about local government to a think-tank seminar. Indeed, when he was asked by one sceptic in the audience whether or not local government was ‘a large part of the problem’ in blocking community enterprise, he denied it, saying there was ‘a metropolitan snobbery about the idea that local government was resistant to change.’ Actually, he said, it had performed much better than Whitehall.
Both ministers made it plain that councils don’t need to wait to be told what to do by Whitehall or, as Mr Pickles exhorted; ‘Over the summer, just get on and do it.’ Do what is another question.
Many councils might well say, ‘make cuts’ or ‘batten down the hatches’ or ‘lay off staff.’ But at least the ministers have made their message clearer: The ball is in local government’s court. Use it.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Planning the ‘Big society’
In my London borough resides one of the capital’s few remaining outdoor pools.
Some 25 years ago, it was closed by the council, then reopened for a while by a community group and staffed by volunteers during the decade when apparently, there was ‘no such thing as society’. Then it closed again.
But there is a happy ending to this tale. Earlier this year, it reopened, newly refurbished, and funded by the same council which first closed it.
The moral to this story is that running local amenities is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. They are usually driven by small groups of dedicated, even obsessive residents who share a community of interest.
The question is whether there will be sufficient numbers of such determined people to provide the ‘Big society’ that PM David Cameron believes needs to take off, as spending cuts reduce the local state.
It is certainly true that the public need a sea change in their attitude to just what the local public sector can provide. The discussion earlier this year over whether it was legal under ‘elf and safety’ to shovel snow in front of your house was one example. Residents will have to be prepared to take more responsibility for services traditionally seen as the council’s.
Already, some ‘upper-tier’ authorities are looking at handing branch libraries over to community groups. If social enterprises can take them on, then they should be given the opportunity, when the alternative is closure. They also have a role in cross-cutting areas such as youth justice, youth services, mental health, employment, or leisure.
The paradox is that local area grants, which help develop community enterprises, are the easiest for councils to axe, as indeed they have been doing. And contracts with the voluntary sector are the first to be squeezed in a budget downturn, surely a case of extreme short-sightedness.
Let us not be under any illusion that councils will be able to walk away from services simply because social enterprises have filled part of the gap. The ‘Big society’ will continue to need support, often financial, and if fails, then the council will be left holding the baby.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Some 25 years ago, it was closed by the council, then reopened for a while by a community group and staffed by volunteers during the decade when apparently, there was ‘no such thing as society’. Then it closed again.
But there is a happy ending to this tale. Earlier this year, it reopened, newly refurbished, and funded by the same council which first closed it.
The moral to this story is that running local amenities is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. They are usually driven by small groups of dedicated, even obsessive residents who share a community of interest.
The question is whether there will be sufficient numbers of such determined people to provide the ‘Big society’ that PM David Cameron believes needs to take off, as spending cuts reduce the local state.
It is certainly true that the public need a sea change in their attitude to just what the local public sector can provide. The discussion earlier this year over whether it was legal under ‘elf and safety’ to shovel snow in front of your house was one example. Residents will have to be prepared to take more responsibility for services traditionally seen as the council’s.
Already, some ‘upper-tier’ authorities are looking at handing branch libraries over to community groups. If social enterprises can take them on, then they should be given the opportunity, when the alternative is closure. They also have a role in cross-cutting areas such as youth justice, youth services, mental health, employment, or leisure.
The paradox is that local area grants, which help develop community enterprises, are the easiest for councils to axe, as indeed they have been doing. And contracts with the voluntary sector are the first to be squeezed in a budget downturn, surely a case of extreme short-sightedness.
Let us not be under any illusion that councils will be able to walk away from services simply because social enterprises have filled part of the gap. The ‘Big society’ will continue to need support, often financial, and if fails, then the council will be left holding the baby.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Tensions under the surface
The coalition government’s honeymoon stops on 20 October, when the spending review is announced.
Thereafter, the gloves are off and the Government faces its first real test as details of the cuts become clear.
Much depends on the crucial period between now and October, and the extent to which ministers will be able to come to agreement with their political allies currently running most of local government.
The LGA conference in Bournemouth this week is the most important gathering of public sector leaders since the election, and it is not surprising that [communities secretary] Eric Pickles and his team are taking it seriously, with Mr Pickles pointedly regarding it as a party conference.
In turn, the LGA leadership is keen to show that it has the ear of the coalition, and that while there are differences, especially on the schools agenda, these can be ironed out. Both central and local want the relationship to work, not only because they are politically from the same sides, but because the alternative of non-co-operation would be a disaster for them and the public.
But tensions are already clear. The spinning of Mr Pickles’ speech on Tuesday morning with its angle of ‘non jobs’ was hardly conducive to creating positive headlines about local government. LGA chairman Dame Margaret Eaton was obliged in her own speech to ask politicians to ‘stop chasing cheap headlines at our expense.’
In his conference address, Mr Pickles then proceeded to argue that chief executives were superfluous and their jobs could be done by executive leaders, not a necessarily attractive prospect to Tory senior councillors. Many of them will also argue that if the minister is such a localist, he should let them decide their own forms of governance.
The cancellation of Building Schools for the Future projects has also aroused the ire of leaders, and the whole free schools agenda raises questions over the future role of education authorities.
It is inevitable that central/local tensions will exist, as they did when Labour controlled both local and central government. But, with a background of deep spending cuts which could impact disproportionately on councils, these differences – often exacerbated by needlessly provocative comments – need to be removed.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Thereafter, the gloves are off and the Government faces its first real test as details of the cuts become clear.
Much depends on the crucial period between now and October, and the extent to which ministers will be able to come to agreement with their political allies currently running most of local government.
The LGA conference in Bournemouth this week is the most important gathering of public sector leaders since the election, and it is not surprising that [communities secretary] Eric Pickles and his team are taking it seriously, with Mr Pickles pointedly regarding it as a party conference.
In turn, the LGA leadership is keen to show that it has the ear of the coalition, and that while there are differences, especially on the schools agenda, these can be ironed out. Both central and local want the relationship to work, not only because they are politically from the same sides, but because the alternative of non-co-operation would be a disaster for them and the public.
But tensions are already clear. The spinning of Mr Pickles’ speech on Tuesday morning with its angle of ‘non jobs’ was hardly conducive to creating positive headlines about local government. LGA chairman Dame Margaret Eaton was obliged in her own speech to ask politicians to ‘stop chasing cheap headlines at our expense.’
In his conference address, Mr Pickles then proceeded to argue that chief executives were superfluous and their jobs could be done by executive leaders, not a necessarily attractive prospect to Tory senior councillors. Many of them will also argue that if the minister is such a localist, he should let them decide their own forms of governance.
The cancellation of Building Schools for the Future projects has also aroused the ire of leaders, and the whole free schools agenda raises questions over the future role of education authorities.
It is inevitable that central/local tensions will exist, as they did when Labour controlled both local and central government. But, with a background of deep spending cuts which could impact disproportionately on councils, these differences – often exacerbated by needlessly provocative comments – need to be removed.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
No time to be talking rubbish
What is it about Eric Pickles and rubbish? The other week, he was laying into the Audit Commission, claiming it was ordering councils to impose fortnightly bin collections, an allegation strenuously denied by the commission.
This week, he directed his ire at council publications, saying in a Sunday newspaper they were ‘weekly town hall Pravdas’, and councils ought to focus on ‘providing regular rubbish collections’.
The subject of rubbish is very important to the public. In many cases, it is the only service people associate with their council. It is especially important in districts, such as the one covering Mr Pickles’ constituency.
But does it merit quite so much of his attention as secretary of state?
His intervention, however, raises a wider question, which is the extent he needs to be telling councils what to do on an almost parochial basis, when he is apparently an ardent advocate of localism. Most councils make their own minds up about weekly or fortnightly bin collections, depending on their local circumstances, and do not need Mr Pickles to tell them about how to pick up rubbish.
Nor do they need Mr Pickles to tell them in what format to issue information to their public. In some areas, the local media is vibrant. In other areas, not. In my borough, the local media is dire, and its circulation patchy, and the Conservative-run council feels obliged to produce a quarterly magazine to tell residents what it is doing.
In all cases, the council bankrolls its local media through advertising, in particular, statutory notices, a particularly futile hangover from the past. Statutory notices are a waste of taxpayers’ money but a good source of income to local newspapers. Is that good or bad?
But the point is that Mr Pickles has a very big job trying to ensure his department isn’t cut to ribbons and in ensuring that local government, of which he is a great defender, is able to handle the forthcoming cuts without slashing services.
In the scheme of things, fortnightly bin collections and council newspapers, while handy headline-generators when in Opposition, are small potatoes for a secretary of state.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
This week, he directed his ire at council publications, saying in a Sunday newspaper they were ‘weekly town hall Pravdas’, and councils ought to focus on ‘providing regular rubbish collections’.
The subject of rubbish is very important to the public. In many cases, it is the only service people associate with their council. It is especially important in districts, such as the one covering Mr Pickles’ constituency.
But does it merit quite so much of his attention as secretary of state?
His intervention, however, raises a wider question, which is the extent he needs to be telling councils what to do on an almost parochial basis, when he is apparently an ardent advocate of localism. Most councils make their own minds up about weekly or fortnightly bin collections, depending on their local circumstances, and do not need Mr Pickles to tell them about how to pick up rubbish.
Nor do they need Mr Pickles to tell them in what format to issue information to their public. In some areas, the local media is vibrant. In other areas, not. In my borough, the local media is dire, and its circulation patchy, and the Conservative-run council feels obliged to produce a quarterly magazine to tell residents what it is doing.
In all cases, the council bankrolls its local media through advertising, in particular, statutory notices, a particularly futile hangover from the past. Statutory notices are a waste of taxpayers’ money but a good source of income to local newspapers. Is that good or bad?
But the point is that Mr Pickles has a very big job trying to ensure his department isn’t cut to ribbons and in ensuring that local government, of which he is a great defender, is able to handle the forthcoming cuts without slashing services.
In the scheme of things, fortnightly bin collections and council newspapers, while handy headline-generators when in Opposition, are small potatoes for a secretary of state.
Michael Burton, Editor, The MJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
