ANNEX A
Central Local Partnership
18 January 2006
Attendees
Central Government
The Rt Hon John Prescott MP, Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, ODPM
The Rt Hon David Miliband MP, Minister of Communities and Local Government, ODPM
Yvette Cooper MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, ODPM
Phil Woolas MP, Minister for Local Government, ODPM
Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, ODPM
The Baroness Andrews OBE MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, ODPM
The Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP, Secretary of State for the Home Office
The Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, DfES
The Rt Hon Des Browne MP, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury
The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP, Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs
The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP, Secretary of State, Department of Culture, Media and Sport
Liam Byrne MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health
Karen Buck MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport
Ben Bradshaw MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
James Plaskitt, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State - Department for Work and Pensions
Officials
Peter Housden, Permanent Secretary, ODPM
John Pavel, OPSR
Neil Kinghan CB - Director-General, Local and Regional Governance Group, ODPM
Lindsay Bell - Director, Local Government Finance, ODPM
John O'Brien - Director, Local Government Performance and Practice, ODPM
David Prout - Director, Local Government Policy, ODPM
Alan Davis - Director of Neighbourhood Strategy, ODPM
Stephen Marston, Director, Adult Learning Group, Department for Education and Skills
Ray Shostak, Director, Public Services Directorate HM Treasury
Julia Penton - Head of Local Government Liaison, ODPM
Kieran Read - Home Office
Jenna Littler - DPM's Private Secretary
Matthew Style - Private Secretary, CST
Mick Halloran - DPM's Special Adviser
Kieran Read - Home Office
Mark Doran - Policy Adviser, ODPM
Chris Taylor - Local Government and Fire Group, ODPM
Mary Hughes - Local Government and Fire Group, ODPM
Local Government Association
Conservative
Cllr Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart - (Kent) Chairman
Cllr Nick Skellett, Leader of Surrey County Council
Cllr. Sir Simon Milton KBE - Westminster
Cllr Mrs Alison King - Norfolk
Labour
Cllr Sir Jeremy Beecham - Newcastle upon Tyne
Cllr Ian Swithenbank CBE - Northumberland
Cllr Dame Sally Powell - Hammersmith & Fulham
Cllr David Sparks - Dudley
Liberal Democrat
Cllr Richard Kemp - Liverpool
Cllr Gerald Vernon Jackson - Portsmouth
Independent
Association of Police Authorities
Cllr Bob Jones - Chairman, APA
Officers
Sir Brian Briscoe - Chief Executive
John Ransford - Deputy Chief Executive
Oona Muirhead - Director of Strategy and Communications
John Rees - Director of Central Services
Sarah Wood - Director of Policy
Saffron Cordery - Head of Public Affairs
Stephen Meek
Julie Grimble
Bridget Harris
Jason Stacey
Marie Evernden
Apologies
Jim Murphy MP, Parliamentary Secretary of State, Cabinet Office
Cllr Chloe Lambert - Independent, Aylesbury Vale
Joe Montgomery - Director-General, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, ODPM
PROCEEDINGS
· The Deputy Prime Minister opened the meeting by reaffirming his commitment to the Partnership, and thanking colleagues and the LGA for the strong turn out of senior representatives. He commented on the fact that Sir Brian Briscoe will soon be leaving the LGA by thanking him for his consistently enthusiastic and supportive approach towards the Partnership. He went on to congratulate Sir Simon Milton on receiving a knighthood in the New Year’s Honours list, and said that it was well deserved for his years of dedicated service to local government.
· Turning to the agenda, the DPM proposed that the running order of the agenda be amended; so that the item on education could be taken first, followed by the items on Respect and public sector reform to be taken jointly afterwards, before addressing CSR07 work programme and finally the CLP update. The LGA agreed to this proposal.
Item 1 – The Role of Local Authorities in Education and Learning
1.1 Ruth Kelly introduced the discussion paper on the Schools White Paper and the 14-19 Implementation Plan. On the White Paper, she said that discussion has turned to focus on the more technical aspects of the proposals, and that she welcomed ongoing dialogue with local authorities over the detail of the paper as they were central to it. She noted that the SWP strengthens both the strategic role of local authorities in education provision, and their powers to intervene in struggling schools – such as taking pre-emptive action in certain schools before special measures are taken.
1.2 On the 14-19 Implementation Plan, Ruth said that the DfES wanted to hear the views of local government on the Plan, and commented that as yet there has not been a chance to fully debate all the detail. She gave an overview of key proposals contained in the Plan, pausing on the issue of the respective roles of local authorities and learning and skills councils to note that under new proposals these two organisations would be jointly accountable for the performance of 14-19 education providers. Organisation and funding pilots would be held in a number of areas, with authorities taking the lead in some, and LSCs in others.
1.3 Sir Sandy Bruce Lockhart thanked Ruth Kelly for her opening remarks. Turning to the White Paper, he remarked that there was much to welcome in its content, although local government holds reservations over ideology about choice hindering collaboration between schools – and in rural areas choice did not exist. But local government’s primary concern was around admissions proposals; and the role of the schools adjudicator was not necessary. He said local government was committed to driving up educational standards, but that it was concerned that admissions proposals as currently drafted could lead to schools selecting pupils and parents, rather than pupils selecting schools. He went on to strongly welcome proposals as described in the 14-19 implementation plan.
1.4 Other points made from the Local Government side included:
· The current system on admissions was imperfect, and needed to be improved. This had been shown by the recent TES survey. But granting each school control of its own admissions policy would not help pupils to choose schools, and will generate confusion and dissatisfaction among parents.
· That the Code of Practise should be made mandatory, and local authorities granted the power to set and enforce a strategic admissions policy across their locality. ‘Having regard to’ was not sufficiently strong.
· The creation of new schools, or the expansion of schools in years to come, needed to avoid undermining the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme.
· That local authorities should be able to commission community schools as well as other types of schools. It was not axiomatic, either, that commissioner and provider roles were incompatible.
· Struggling schools are often located in areas where deprivation is greatest. When these are shunned by parents, rather than helped to recover, one of the crucial building block in creating sustainable communities in that locality will also vanish. As such the admissions policy may be at odds with the ODPM’s prime objective.
1.5 Ruth Kelly responded by commenting that devolved admissions are not the same as diverse admissions – and that under current conditions, different schools are subject to different admissions rules, which give some an unfair advantage over others. The proposals in the White Paper would act to level the playing field between schools. For example, the schools adjudicator would be able to take a decision as to which school a difficult pupil may be sent to, and consider all schools in the locality as candidates. Under current rules, some schools (eg community schools) can refuse to take pupils without any recourse.
1.6 Ruth reassured attendees that local authorities would still have a strategic, coordinating role to play in admissions, and that the Admissions Forum would not be abolished. She went on to point out that local authorities can establish foundation schools which share the same governance arrangements with community schools; before concluding by confirming that under current proposals there will not be restrictions imposed on successful schools expanding.
Item 2 – Respect Agenda Plan and Public Sector Reform
1.1 Charles Clarke introduced the joint LGA / Home Office paper on the Respect Action Plan, and made two points.
· That the Respect Agenda does not mark a return to deference, nor is it a short term slogan or gimmick; rather it represents a wide ranging work programme which will run for years.
· The Respect work programme cuts across both central and local government roles and responsibilities, and as such requires all parties to be fully committed to its delivery if it is to be a success.
2.2 On the subject of Public Sector Reform, Charles updated the Partnership on the Policing Strategy and the forthcoming police restructuring programme. He said that the strategy was built around four levels of policing; from a neighbourhood and community level, through the Basic Command Unit level to strategic police force areas, and finally the national level. He said that neighbourhood police units would often be contiguous with wards, under legislation BCUs would be coterminous with districts or unitary authorities, and at the strategic level police forces would not bisect local authorities. Outlining the timetable for delivery of the strategy, he said that the Home Office expected ward level community police to be in place by the end of 2008, while at the strategic police force level, the Home Office was now considering proposals from Chief Constables for mergers of existing forces.
2.3 The DPM then invited David Miliband to introduce the remaining elements of the paper on Public Sector Reform. David said that there are four key themes currently driving public sector reform. Namely:
i. Promoting engagement and responsiveness at a neighbourhood level
ii. Encouraging local partners to better work together to deliver improved public services
iii. Strengthening local leadership, through such mechanism as the LSP
iv. Exploring the implications of the first three themes for central government – such as how top down performance drivers could reduce as bottom up accountability is strengthened.
2.4 Sir Sandy Bruce Lockhart welcomed the proposals in the Respect Action Plan and Charles Clarke’s confirmation that local government has a crucial role to play in delivering the Respect Agenda. He sought clarification as to why this point had not been expressed publicly during the launch.
2.5 Sir Simon Milton said that local government broadly welcomed the Action Plan, although it did have a few reservations about some of the detail, particularly on the punitive measures which could in particular penalise children. He made three particular points:
i. That local government would regard new early intervention measures set out in the Plan as new burdens;
ii. That performance against delivering the action plan should not be assessed on the basis of counting process measures such as the number of parenting orders issued - but rather should focus on outcome measures, such as local residents’ satisfaction with the local authority in tackling anti social behaviour;
iii. That while many local authorities will be including Respect or ASB outcomes in their Local Area Agreement (LAA), they should not be mandated and nor should the means of achieving outcomes. This would undermine the spirit of LAAs which should be developed bottom-up to take account of locality priorities.
2.6 Sir Jeremy Beecham said that the Respect approach must strike a balance between punitive action and earlier preventative measures; young people or particular places such as council estates must not be inadvertently stigmatised
2.7 Other comments made by the local government side on Respect included:
· The fact that the Government’s intentions around LAAs risked being undermined if Respect engagement means of tackling ASB were imposed rather than being appropriate to the locality. For example, targets on numbers of Parenting Orders could reinforce failure.
· There is support for the concept of neighbourhood policing; but to ensure the approach is successful, the policy has to be joined up across departments and local partners.
2.8 On Public Service Delivery more generally:
· Local government welcomed a debate about what should be done at different governance levels. But discussion of restructuring risked cutting across this. The neighbourhood level was key; in particular that LAA and LSP partners should have the authority and flexibility to meet rising local expectations for improving public services.
· Public services should be effectively and efficiently delivered, and while local people must be able to engage in issues relating to the delivery of their services – they should not have to, in order to receive adequate services.
· There is a question over the democratic accountability of LSPs to local communities, given that only one partner represented on them is elected. The phrase ‘first among equals’ needed legitimacy. The role of scrutiny was also a factor in improving accountability to local people.
2.9 Charles Clarke responded to the comments made by the local government side, agreeing that local government has a central role in delivering the Action Plan, and that their positive engagement is crucial if the Action Plan is to be a success. He explained that the Plan is not solely about imposing sanctions to counter ASB, since it also includes a suite of other upstream measures which will require joined up working at the local level to implement.
2.10 On the point of performance measurement Charles acknowledged that assessing performance against Respect outcomes was difficult, but that agreeing Parenting Orders was an important challenge for local authorities in delivering the Respect agenda. He asserted that the number agreed should be quantified and made public.
2.11 Finally, Charles remarked that the Respect plan relates to the core business of both central and local government, and that both central and local government should use existing expenditure in such a way as to support the focus of the Respect Action Plan.
Item 3 – Comprehensive Spending Review 07 and Cost Pressures
3.1 Des Browne, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, introduced the first half of the paper on the CSR07 work programme. He said that the spending review was an opportunity to take stock of what investment in public services had achieved, and the challenges of the next decade. The fiscal situation was tightening and the challenge would be to sustain the pace of improvements in public service delivery in this context. The CSR07 work programme had the following key elements: