There was much in Alan Milburn’s article that is right. He is right to stress the need for genuine consultation and engagement of the community in developing local services, the usefulness of limited and often locally derived targets, and the concept of guaranteed levels of service. Indeed, in respect of the latter we should go further and provide a measure of redress without which the guarantees would be effectively meaningless.
There are, however, some aspects of the ‘choice’ agenda that are more debatable. For example, Milburn observes that ‘choice can only thrive where there is greater diversity’ but appears to ignore the need for greater capacity without which, for example, the ostensible right for parents to choose their children’s schools can too easily become the right of the school to choose the child.
Nor is it clear what contribution to the solution of the housing problem would be made by his suggestion of ‘new rights’ for tenants in the public sector. For that matter, it is unclear whether that right should be confined to tenants in the public sector. We surely need to debate the limits of choice, not least in light of Milburn’s conclusion that ‘with cash following choice the schools, hospitals, surgeries or services that do more to a higher standard will get more. Those that do not, will not’. But what would be the consequences for those left behind when cash has followed the choice of what, given the capacity issue, will be a minority?
But the most disappointing feature of the article is the fact that it ignores almost completely the historic role, and present and future potential, of democratically elected local government in the whole process of community leadership, civic renewal, and service delivery. It refers constantly to the connection of ‘central government and local services’ rather than local government, and whilst rightly affirming that devolution cannot stop at the door of the town hall, apparently intends to by-pass the town hall completely.
This does scant justice to the long tradition of innovation and social change wrought by local government, or to its strategic role in joining up services, acting as community champion, or reaching out to communities. Coming from someone who worked in local government at a time when it was seeking to defend local people and local services from a reactionary Tory government, this is somewhat surprising.
Moreover, the thrust of his suggestion that local authorities should ‘focus less on providing and more on commissioning’ is rather too similar to the aspiration of Nicholas Ridley to reduce the role of councils to mere signatories of contracts with external providers. Of course there should be a mixed economy of provision, but why should councils not compete with the private and third sectors on the basis of a level playing field?
There must be some doubts about recommendations for local referendums and direct elections to a plethora of single-issue bodies. Housing transfer ballots can exceed 70 percent turnout, but when, as in Birmingham or Camden, the results go ‘the wrong way’ the government tends to ignore the implications. Moreover, in calling for direct elections to ‘school governing bodies’ he appears to overlook the fact that parent governors are elected, albeit with difficulty, since there seems to be little propensity to take up such places and many are uncontested.
There is a somewhat simplistic view of community interest that envisages an identity view across, for example, an area which in reality may contain a series of communities defined by location, class, ethnicity or age, and where interests frequently conflict. It is surely here, above all, that local government has its place, and within it the contesting political parties should be leading the debate to present a choice of programmes and policies to their communities. There should not be a local council monopoly on local power. But, with partners and checked by the democratic accountability, local government should provide local leadership.