Meeting documents
- Meeting of Bucks Strategic Partnership Board, Thursday 20th January 2011 2.00 pm (Item 5.)
Tony Travers, London School of Economics, will facilitate a workshop, promoting consideration of the key policy and financial issues affecting partner organisations, and their collective impact on the strategic direction for Buckinghamshire. This will help to inform the Board's deliberations about what partners wish to work together on, and how we want to go about this.
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed Tony Travers from the London School of Economics to the meeting.
Tony Travers gave a powerpoint presentation - Surviving and prospering: local provision in 2011 and beyond.
During the presentation members discussed various issues which were raised, and made the following points:
· Changes proposed by Government were radical and would go much deeper than reforms to Local Government funding. These were the most radical reforms to the Public Sector since 1945.
· Eric Pickles' aim was to move to a system where there was no central grant, and in which local authorities would rely on Council Tax and business rates. This would work well in somewhere like Westminster (which had a very high figure for business rates) but not in an area such as Liverpool. Areas such as Westminster would need to put money into a central pool to be re-distributed.
· Council Tax and business rates would be open to referenda.
· The changes could lead to different rates of public sector pay in the UK.
· The changes could lead to people moving more around the UK, as in the USA.
· Government figures suggested that the reduction of jobs in the Public Sector would be equalled by expansion in the Private Sector. However the majority of the job growth in the last 10-15 years had been in London and the South East . There had been some job growth elsewhere, but this had mainly been in the Public Sector. Therefore the predicted increase in Private Sector jobs might not be in the same geographical areas as the decrease in Public Sector jobs.
· It was also not clear where predicted growth in the Private Sector would take place, as the UK no longer had a large manufacturing sector. Tony Travers said that his guess was that the growth would be in the financial and business sectors. If Private Sector job increases did not meet Public Sector job losses, the cost of unemployment would be felt.
· The New Homes Bonus would be offered as an incentive to local authorities to increase their Council Tax base. However some authorities would be limited in how they could utilise this (e.g. those which had green belt land).
· 'Spending Power' was a new concept from Government, and was calculated by adding Council Tax to Government funding. Tony Travers' view was that District Councils were going to be ‘squeezed’ harder than the County Council in this respect and that the only way for District Councils to receive some money back would be by giving out planning permission for housing (for the New Homes Bonus).
· Social Housing could be the next potential area of crisis.
· The responsibility for Council Tax Benefit would be handed to District Councils in 2013 and reduced by 10%.
· If local authorities contracted services with funding to the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS), as proposed by the Government, where would savings be made?
· Many VCS organisations would inevitably dissolve as funding was reduced. There was also the issue of the sustainability of volunteer-run organisations. Current volunteers were often older or retired people.
· As services became more localised, they would no longer be countywide or even district-wide, and this could mean that there would be gaps in service.
· Local Government had increased in quality in recent years, due to the Comprehensive Performance Assessment etc. Cuts were being made to Local Government first as this was most efficient part of the Public Sector. Cuts of the same level to the NHS, for example, were not feasible.
· The trade unions’ response to the cuts had so far been muted. Local elections in May would indicate how the public had responded to the cuts.
· There was a powerful expectation in the UK that there would be consistent public service across all areas. How could Local Government ensure this in a changing world?
· The gap between rich and poor would definitely grow. The Government wanted a more competitive society, and this could lead to 'postcode lotteries.'
· There was concern about disadvantaged communities in Buckinghamshire, which needed to be supported and not marginalised. The Government would also be reducing its statistical coverage, which could mean that Local Government had fewer statistics to base its decisions upon.
There was a short discussion on High Speed 2 and it was noted that the UK was a much smaller country than those European countries which already had high-speed rail.
Tony Travers finished the discussion by noting that however else one viewed the changes, they would lead to interesting, new and exhilarating times.
Members then discussed the four proposed themes for the BSP work programme.
It was suggested that the need for new models of service delivery following the cuts, and the efficiency and financial agenda, be addressed, as these would be key in ensuring that services were delivered.
Members asked for the following activity to be added to the BSP Work programme:
· Look at the cumulative impact of changes and map out a comprehensive view of the public state (including how changes impact on different groups).
· Look at new models of service delivery that can generate income.
The BSP Board agreed the four recommended themes for the future direction of Buckinghamshire. These were: Tackling crime and fear of crime; Promoting prosperity; Narrowing the gaps; Big Society.
The BSP Board also agreed that the following should be added to the work programme:
· Look at the cumulative impact of changes and map out a comprehensive view of the public state (including how changes impact on different groups).
· Look at new models of service delivery that can generate income.
Supporting documents: