We want people to think about the place and not about the different institutions that contribute to life there. The perception must be of public service delivery so joined up it is simply the place that delivers. That is the direction our policy is going and it is strengthened by the new responsibilities for community cohesion following the machinery of Government changes. In the autumn the White Paper will reflect this strategy and our policy in this direction.

The next point I want to make absolutely clear is that LSPs are definitely here to stay and they have a key role in the future of local areas. LSPs are at the heart of Local Area Agreements and they are the principal support for private sector and voluntary and community sector involvement in the locality. Only by bringing together the major players, whatever their sector label, will we make progress and build better, stronger communities.

There is plenty of evidence that partnerships are working at the top – at national, regional and area-wide level. But what matters is that partnership works at the level of delivery to local neighbourhoods and local people. This is where LSPs play a pivotal role. In Neighbourhood Renewal Funding areas, where LSPs are longer and better established, we are beginning to see how effective partnership working can lead to delivery on the ground. That is the picture we need to see spreading everywhere.

I have called LSPs the ‘partnership of partnerships’. That means all the partnerships which are part of the LSP together represent the interests in the area that should have a voice and together can be a powerhouse for change. For the LSP to succeed in delivering its goals, it has to be inclusive. This does not mean rounding up the usual suspects and loudest voices – it means looking carefully at the community, what makes it tick and what are the barriers.

While the LSP pulls together all these strands at the centre of the web, it follows that the structures spreading out from the centre must be in place too. There must be the neighbourhood structures in place to support the bodies represented so they can be active and effective partners.

So if there is no youth council, you need to very seriously consider where there should be one. If there is not an inter-faith forum, should there be one. If there is no voluntary sector body – an NCVO-type structure in every area – should there be one. And it would need to cover all the roles carried out by the third sector. That is as advocate, service provider and conduit between the state and community groups.

Tenants and residents might need their representation, chambers of commerce theirs, perhaps a TUC equivalent in every area, and so on. Communities are multidimensional, people’s lives are multidimensional – and participation in the LSP must reflect that fully.

Of course, we recognise that every area is different and the detailed choice of partners is best made locally. It will reflect the priorities for the area but it seems to me that certain important groups and interests are found in virtually every community.

However I accept the mix of top priority issues in Sunderland is not going to be the same as the mix in Suffolk, although some issues will figure in both. For example, employment and enterprise will be high on the list, but the priorities for action within that and the partners with the answers may be very different.

I know some people have asked the question – why are we giving power to unelected agencies? After all, uniquely in the local area, the council is a democratically elected body. I think the answer is simple. These agencies already had power – some through funding or the service they offer and some through their strong links to the community. What we are doing is bringing them under the auspices of the local authority so all their energies and activities are combined in delivering a shared vision. Local government is in a special position – I frequently refer to it as the ‘first among equals’. So bringing together all the partners and bringing coherence to their work, is spreading democracy much wider throughout public services and community life. Local government’s position should never be mistaken for a mandate to command and control. Partnership, co-operation and collaborative forms of community leadership are much more effective ways of working in the modern local landscape.

The right membership with the neighbourhood structures to back them up is one important part of LSPs. The other, I believe, is having some predictability in funding. The LSP is at the heart of the Local Area Agreement. LAAs are a deal between the local area and government, negotiated through the Government Offices. They are not an institution, nor an end in themselves. A large part of that LAA deal is the financial one – funding streams are brought together so they can work much more effectively by supporting priority action, whatever agency or agencies are best placed to take it forward.

The whole concept is based on devolution and the sensible principle that local partners are best placed to know what the priorities are and what action would work best for the people in their area.

LAAs have widespread support throughout local and central government. They are a radical but logical change and we are only just beginning to see their potential. We are determined to pool and align more funding streams as LAAs roll out and start to deliver. However we also need to ensure that there is some predictability and stability in the funding streams going into them. LSPs cannot do their job and local government cannot deliver on the deal if there is no certainty of future funding, let alone a clear idea of the level of that funding. How can they plan to make a difference on this basis? They will simply plan to fail if funding is pulled back at the last minute, or there are overburdensome strings attached, or they simply have no idea what might be available as the year begins.

This is a serious challenge for central government and we must meet it. We have delivered more stability through two year and then three year settlements for local government. That gives local authorities considerably more scope for planning with confidence and passing on some of that certainty to their partners. This is a good start but it is only one funding stream going into the area, albeit it a major one.

My first goal in local Government is to extend our two year period of funding to a three year period starting in April 2008 and to ensure – and this is the challenge to central government, and I make it public and on the record – that three year stability and predictability is available for all the funding streams through the Local Area Agreements in order that you can get on with your jobs. Uncertainty and changes in budgets jeopardise projects across local areas.

I have already seen concerns between social services and health, on budgetary changes, affecting delivery – so this forms a policy commitment from central government.

My second goal is to join up better between Whitehall and the Treasury. LAAs are in part an agreement between Whitehall departments as well as with local areas and local partners. They allow Ministers to be clear and focussed on what their major priorities are, and allow Parliament to know what is nationally an equitable outcome. The next challenge is to progress chase across Whitehall on behalf of local government and their partners.

And my third ambition for local government and local partners is to give them financial flexibility so investments can be shared by partners and resources passed between agencies if there is a benefit to be had by doing so. Why not take this further still and have one account for the place, be it town or city and its area.

Alongside the funding, we need to make the role of LSPs clear and sort out some fundamentals so they are set up to succeed. As you know we have been consulting about these issues and I am really pleased that so many people responded. In total we had nearly 600 responses, many representing the collective views of large groups. Not surprisingly a large number of LSPs gave us their views but in the end this represented fewer than half the overall response. The interest in the consultation is a firm endorsement of how important we all believe LSPs are in the local delivery landscape.

On some issues there was considerable consensus. Around three-quarters of all respondents agreed that the role of the LSP should be to develop the Sustainable Community Strategy, reflecting the vision and priorities for the area, and to realise that through the detailed outcomes set out in the LAA. Nearly everyone agreed with the ‘partnership of partnerships’ model, with thematic sub-partnerships being, in effect, the delivery arms. Around a third made the point that the model must be flexible enough to reflect differing local priorities and circumstances.

There was less consensus about the respective roles of the LSPs in two-tier areas, with some saying a clear split between the roles of district and county LSPs would be helpful and others that they would need to see the detail before coming to a conclusion. Interestingly around half of all respondents believed the LSP is a forum where some of the usual tensions between county and district are avoided.

There has been a great deal of discussion around whether there should be a duty on named statutory bodies to co-operate. Just over half the respondents agreed with this but a significant number felt that taking part should not be obligatory. One fairly typical view was, I quote: “I think the LSP should be the known first stop in any joint working partnership problem. This should be advertised, given teeth and known to all.”

We had some interesting responses around the role of local councillors. There was strong support for ward councillors – the frontline councillors in the community – playing a key role in identifying local issues and needs, as well as being involved in community engagement activities. Executive councillors were seen more as having an important part to play in community leadership.

Many people also believed frontline councillors should have a stronger role in scrutiny processes and assessing performance. However they believed there needs to be more clarity about what councillors might be expected to do here.

Communication and consultation figured largely in response to questions of how we could make sure there was wide community involvement. Funding issues featured in this connection too. On the issue of what kind of skills were missing in order to do the job properly, financial support was a key gap, with partnership working and project management also being cited by many.

We still have more analysis to do on the results before we can publish them, but those are some of the early headlines. Altogether it has given us a much sounder basis for making decisions on the way forward. The White Paper in the autumn will also sum up the way forward for LSPs. We will also be commissioning research to provide further evidence – more on the action and delivery side than the processes. As a result of all this work and the consultation, we will need to make changes. Some will need legislation, some will not.

What is important is that LSPs are geared up to play their key role in local areas in the future. Partnership is the best way of delivering citizen focussed services and community action. It is the best way of tackling inequalities and lack of access to opportunities that many in our society still experience. We have seen from LSPs in neighbourhood renewal areas that they can deliver. Now we must remove the barriers that prevent them delivering everywhere. As I said at the beginning, LSPs are here to stay and we must give them every opportunity to succeed and make a difference. Thank you.