The publication, entitled The Next Question: The future of local leadership, includes a cross party collection of local government leaders who each contribute their thoughts on what the key challenges for council leaders will be in the future.

Head of External Affairs at NLGN and editor of the publication, Liam Scott-Smith, said that:

“The Government is right to acknowledge the crucial role played by council leaders in delivering on the localism agenda. To ensure that leaders can continue to play an important role Whitehall needs to make an extra effort to engage with them.

With local government going through a period of unprecedented change we need to open a discussion about what the future role of the council leader, and by extension all local councillors, will look like.”

Contributions to the collection come from Cllr Mike Whitby, Leader of Birmingham City Council; Cllr Simon Henig, Leader of Durham County Council; Cllr Claire Kober, Leader of the London Borough of Haringey and Cllr Jeff Reid, Leader of Northumberland Council.

The new report, Changing Behaviours, has identified a number of innovative case studies and pilot projects where councils have afforded citizens an increased role in re-inventing services, resulting in cost reductions for councils of between 15 and 20 percent.

However, the report also warns that government itself must radically change to initiate and maximise these approaches. Greater resources and emphasis need to be invested in effective communication with residents and in putting support measures in place to enable a more active role for individual citizens in designing their public services.

Report author and NLGN’s Head of Research, Nigel Keohane said:

“With local government facing the daunting challenges of dealing with massive budget reductions whilst renewing their relationship with citizens, councils need to take the lead in adopting behaviour change techniques to make the Government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda a reality.”

“Our research shows that identifying ‘Citizen Pioneers’ who are prepared to initiate and lead increased public engagement with service design can encourage wider participation among communities as these practices become part of the norm.” The report sets out practical tools available to councils to better understand citizens’ underlying motivations so that services can be personalised to their needs and values. This detailed social insight allows councils to gauge and test what support, advice and messages citizens would respond positively to.

The New Local Government Network has drawn up a list of proposals and safeguards to create better working practices between the Commissioners and Police and Crime Panels (PCPs), the body established to hold the new elected post to account. Amongst them include:

• Imposing a duty on Police Commissioners to regularly engage with partners
  
• Giving elected councillors, through PCPs, a role to influence the budget-setting process
  
• Allowing PCPs the power of veto, requiring a two-third majority, over certain key decisions, such as setting the budget and the appointment of chief constables
  
• Handing over Police Commissioner powers to newly elected city mayors
  
• Allowing chief constables to appeal to PCPs should they feel their operational independence is threatened.

The report also warns against greater politicisation of local law enforcement. Author Olivier Roth said:

“While directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners should improve police visibility and give citizens a channel through which they can address their concerns, there is a risk that electoral considerations could influence the actions and focus of Police and Crime Commissioners, and that these will become too politicised. As a repository of local democracy, and a link to partners responsible for tackling the broader drivers of crime, Police and Crime Panels should play an important part in this process, and have their functions commensurately increased”.

The report also argues that:

“Police and Crime Commissioners will therefore have to work in partnership with local authorities and other public bodies, with citizens and communities, and with the newly created National Crime Agency in order to deliver positive policing outcomes. Police and Crime Commissioners should not be able to circumvent these partnership workings, many of which tackle the drivers of crime, and should therefore be required to consult and work with these entities on a regular basis. This engagement should provide further opportunities for neighbourhoods and citizens to participate in the improvement of crime outcomes.”

In a new report the think tank urges the Government to abolish the ultra vires principle – in place to ensure that councils do not stray beyond their powers – and allow them to implement actions unless they are expressly forbidden by law.

With parliament shortly to consider legislating for a General Power of Competence for local authorities, NLGN’s report sets out a series of innovative activities that councils could consider adopting and makes recommendations on how the reform should be enacted.

In the context of local authorities losing a third of Central Government funding over the next four years, the research argues that councils must be freed to develop new revenue streams and income, and allowed to work more innovatively in partnership with the private sector, local community groups and other public bodies to drive out savings and re-design services.

The research analyses possible new ventures and activities for local authorities to consider, including

• offering banking, insurance and credit services to local businesses and residents;
  
• grouping together in innovative partnerships to drive efficiencies and generate income or to devolve powers and responsibilities to the neighbourhood level;
  
• trading and selling a wider range of products and expertise (such as recruitment services, energy, communication and business services) to the private sector as well as other public agencies;
  
• varying charging rates for planning and licensing fees to reflect local circumstances and costs;
  
• adjusting tax rates and reliefs to incentivise behaviour on recycling, business development or property usage.

In legislating for change, the report calls on the Government to consider a series of additional freedoms to make the reform meaningful. These include allowing councils to act as they like in the interests of their local communities as long as their action is not specifically illegal, permitting local authorities to flex and vary taxes within the existing tax regime and carrying out a thorough examination of current laws to remove inappropriate legislation.

Report author and NLGN’s Head of Research, Nigel Keohane, said:

‘This power has the potential to be a major piece of reform that heralds a new era of localism. For too long, democratically-elected councils have been restricted in what they can do and vulnerable to legal challenge for adopting innovative responses to local challenges.

‘In the difficult financial landscape ahead, local authorities need full discretion to engage in new ways with their community, to save money through efficiencies and to develop income to safeguard frontline services.

‘To work it will require a leap of faith from national politicians to give local areas the necessary latitude for innovation to thrive. It will then rest on the ambition and aspiration of local communities to determine how best to improve the lives of their residents.’

In one of the most detailed studies so far on Total Place, the research finds that whilst billions of savings could be achieved at the local level by better joined-up services, a lack of coherence between Government departments and a historic reluctance to devolve threatens to derail the project. The report is timed to inform the debate around the future of Total Place before further announcements are made in the Budget.

NLGN’s report argues that major change is needed at the centre to break existing top-down models and cultures of accountability and service delivery, which lead to significant inefficiency and wastage in public services. For instance, one local pilot uncovered as many as 50 different benefits each with their own form, rules and administrative machinery; another has calculated that it costs as much as £135m to spend £176m on economic development projects. NLGN’s analysis shows that major benefits can be unlocked by a more collaborative approach to public sector assets and building services around the citizen at a local level.

The report advocates the setting up of a new Department for Devolved Government to subsume CLG and the Cabinet Office and the Scottish and Welsh offices to drive devolution across Whitehall and release greater freedoms and powers for locally elected politicians to coordinate activity and decide how and where services are delivered. As part of this, accountability for public health budgets and local policing should be devolved immediately to all local authorities.

It also argues that localities and national government should come to a new series of deals on devolving public money and delivery responsibilities across a wider range of services such as employment and skills. These Place Proposition Agreements would allow local areas to set out how they could provide improved services for less money as a response to the expected cuts in public sector budgets.

Further recommendations in the NLGN report include:

• Allowing councils full discretion over spend across regeneration, transport and housing in a single capital pot;
  
• Establishing a new Joint Parliamentary and Local Government ‘Total Place Progress Committee’ comprised of MPs and local council leaders to scrutinise cross-government activity;
  
• Strengthening existing Local Strategic Partnership arrangements and moving towards more statutory, incorporated and focused Public Service Boards;
  
• Undertaking total counts of public resources and asset mapping across all local areas as a catalyst for collaborative approaches;
  
• Setting up a Collaborative Leadership Academy to develop leadership across the public sector.

‘The concept of aligning all public resources in an area around the needs of its community is simple and commonsense. Putting it into practice, however, remains a major challenge not just for local areas but also for Whitehall. The changes needed go way beyond merely removing a few ring-fenced budgets or performance targets. Our cultures of governing and our current systems of funding and accountability cut through and undermine our focus on what the citizen needs.

‘With public sector budgets under pressure, it is more important now than ever that we seek to institute reforms that can ensure the most targeted and efficient responses to our local communities. This must include greater freedoms, responsibilities and resources at the local level.’

NLGN’s report was undertaken with support from Cap Gemini, Grant Thornton, Leadership Centre for Local Government and London Councils.

With David Cameron committed to referendums on elected city mayors in 12 English cities should the Conservatives win the election, NLGN argues that a high level suite of powers needs to be devolved in order to incentivise city-regional mayors (characterised in the paper as ‘platinum level’ powers) and similarly a set of further powers (‘gold level’) needs to be granted for all other elected mayors. Both reforms would see mayors receiving additional powers to the ones they currently hold, trailblazing the decentralisation to local government in general.

There are currently 13 elected mayors in England and some have been credited with developing new forms of civic leadership and tackling long-term problems. However, presently only the Mayor of London has wider strategic power over areas such as transport and policing and overall England lacks well-known and influential civic mayors such as Mayor Bloomberg in New York or Pasqual Maragall in Barcelona.

The report argues that strong local leadership and vision is needed to take bold decisions and citizens need to be better engaged in choices about what can be realistically delivered, particularly with constraints on public spending likely in the coming years. It suggests that elected mayors are well placed to execute this function, and their high visibility and public profile can help capture the attention of the media and citizens.

Publishing today’s proposals, co-authors Nirmalee Wanduragala and Nick Hope argue that further incentives are needed to encourage strong civic leadership and to allow mayors to reach their full potential. Among the recommendations are:

Financial

City mayors should be able to balance their budget over a four-year period, allowing them greater financial flexibility to raise and lower Council Tax. They should also be granted the power to introduce a supplementary business rate of up to + or – 4p, with any extra funds raised to be spent on economic development within the city as deemed best by the mayor.

Public Services

Mayors representing a city-region should be given transport powers that mirror more closely those that the Mayor of London currently enjoys, in particular through chairing (or the nomination of chair) of the local transport body.

City-region mayors should also have the power to appoint a new post of City or Area Police Commissioner or have the right to appoint themselves to the role.

City-region mayors should have power to appointment the Chief Executive of the local Primary Care Trust and to nominate one person to sit as a non-executive member on the board of the PCT.

Democracy

City and city-region mayors should be able to appoint the chief executive of their local authority.

City-region mayors should be automatically granted a seat in the second chamber of the Houses of Parliament, to counter current under-representation of regional perspectives.

However, NLGN also argues that candidates for mayoral contests should be chosen using a US-style Primaries system to encourage people from outside of politics to stand and create a “unique mandate”. Primaries could be based on an “open” system where anyone, regardless of party affiliation, could stand as a candidate, but with the final decision left to party members or supporters. In London a primary was held to find the Conservative candidate for the mayoral elections, where Boris Johnson was selected. In Bedford the Conservative Party also selected their Mayoral candidate through an open primary.

The authors justify the radical plan for Open Primaries by arguing that “more people from a wider range of backgrounds should have the opportunity to shape the rules and take part in decision-making at all levels in our country. If we are ever to see a renaissance of civic involvement, we need everyone to have the chance to identify with somebody in a position of power. We need to open up politics the party selection process for mayoral candidates should be extended beyond party members.”

The report authors also point towards mayors providing more visible leadership, citing polling evidence that, after just 12 to 18 months mayors being elected, on average 57% of people could identify their mayor, compared to only 25% who could identify their leader in councils without a mayor. They also argue that having an elected mayor was instrumental in London’s successful bid to secure the 2012 Olympic bid.

Report authors Wanduragala and Hope conclude:

“Mayors, with their local mandate, are well placed to be granted wide-ranging delegated powers to help transform the way communities and citizens are served. They provide clear lines of accountability, demarcated responsibility, and effective leadership so that it is clear to everyone “where the buck stops”. Ministers can be confident that they will not to be held responsible by the electorate or the media for the particular actions of an administration in a locality.”

The New Local Government Network is calling on organisations to recognise equalities policy as a strategic necessity to developing high-quality public service delivery, particularly in leadership roles.

The report recommends that local authorities and other public sector organisations use their capacity as the heart of their community to promote good practice and reach out to under-represented groups.

It suggests that local authorities should draw on their extensive local partnerships with businesses, universities and FE colleges, community groups and the voluntary sector to attract a more diverse work-force through secondments, work-experience and job-shadowing and using the forthcoming creation of a National Apprenticeships Service as an opportunity to target under-represented groups.

The report is based on in-depth interviews with almost a hundred chief executives, council leaders, senior officers, recruitment consultants, politicians and NDPB Board members and is published in advance of the Government’s Equalities Bill, which is expected to be published this month.

The report also argues that central Government has a key role in developing equalities policies within the public sector and suggests that departments only commission recruitment consultants who can demonstrate that they take a proactive approach to the promotion of vacancies across the widest range of the population, particularly to under-represented groups, and that they have a track record of delivery on this agenda.

Where public appointments have an important regional impact, such as for Regional Development Agencies, the report recommends that the selection process should be gradually delegated from central government and localised, as the national influence of existing civil service procedures have not ensured representative appointments.

Author of the report, Anna Turley argues:

“The public sector must harness the potential of all our society, through its workforce, its political representation, and its public appointments, if it is to create the kind of leadership our society demands.”

“In the current economic climate it is more important than ever that we enable everyone to fulfil their potential; that within local government and government agencies we create a culture of ambition, aspiration and equality of opportunity; that we value rather than hide from constructive challenge, transparency and learning opportunities.”

“Having a diverse workforce is key to ensuring this kind of leadership. Yet local government and regional public leadership are still far from being representative of the communities they serve, or from harnessing the best of the talent available.”

The report – which has been endorsed by Government Minister John Healey MP – argues that recognising the achievements of local citizens will help to build community cohesion and local civic pride, whilst giving areas a unique identity. It argues that names such as Shakespeare Way and Nelson Road help to celebrate our collection identity and remember British history, and that we should do more to celebrate contemporary British icons.

Published by the New Local Government Network, author James Hulme suggests that councils should organise ‘X Factor’ style public votes to re-name public spaces after local heroes. He urges councils to build upon the example of the Mayor of Mansfield who celebrated the two Olympic gold medals won by local swimmer, Rebecca Adlington by naming a road and the local swimming pool after her.

James Hulme also argues that Edinburgh could rename its public library after local resident J.K. Rowling and that Birmingham should recognise its local achievement by commemorating local figures as diverse as J.R.Tolkien to Corporal Matthew Croucher, who this year was awarded the Victoria Cross for heroic action in Afghanistan.

It suggests that Manchester could name a local park after former Manchester United hero, David Beckham and also name a road after the Gallagher brothers from Oasis.

It also argues that London could recognise contemporary icons such as Twiggy and David Bowie and urges Boris Johnson to pledge that any British athlete who wins more than two medals at the 2012 Olympic Games will have a street named after them in the capital city.

Local Government Minister, John Healey MP has backed the proposals and urges councils to adopt the approach.

Mr Healey said:

”I think it’s great for local democracy and local pride if people can name their public spaces after the people who are important to them. They may choose national icons. But they may also choose their community’s unsung heroes; those who serve others and win the respect and admiration of the people around them.”

“Over the past year, I’ve dealt with the aftermath of last summer’s floods. I’ve seen many ordinary people doing extraordinary things to help their neighbours and get their communities back on their feet. These are just the sort of unsung heroes that local people could honour in this way.”

Hulme also argues that commemorating local achievement would help to develop community cohesion and allow local people to take pride in their locality. In the paper, What’s in a name? Celebrating achievement through public spaces, he argues:

“Celebrating the achievements of local people would give areas a unique identity and focus, especially at a time when there is concern over so called ‘clone towns’ of identikit high streets. It would also be a strong sign that local areas are proud of their heritage and be an opportunity to enlighten newcomers and tourists to their area of the many things achieved there.”

The report also argues that local areas need not just celebrate the achievements of famous heroes, but also commemorate the work of unsung locals such as teachers, policemen and women or local businessmen or women who have made a positive contribution to the area.

• Unease that national indicators are too ill-defined and top-down
  
• Call for Whitehall to step back and give councils greater control
  
• But survey finds local partnerships working well

In an evaluation of the latest wave of Local Area Agreements, NLGN highlights significant achievements through the process, including a more joined-up policy framework, but warns that significant logjams are preventing the system working more effectively. Publishing the research today, NLGN argues that:

• National indicators remain too ill-defined and top-down to support Local Area Agreements that are truly locally relevant and evidence-based;
  
• Some Government departments have not offered sufficient flexibility to their local arms to allow them to play a significant role in Local Area Agreement delivery;
  
• The current consultation on CAAs leaves too many questions unanswered;
  
• Without significant and transparent incentives or penalties accountability for LAA success is obscure;

• Whitehall departments should commit to the primacy of the LAA. Where central mandates and regulations interfere with LAA delivery, the Local Area Agreement should take priority;
  
• Statutory Local Area Agreement partners should be expected to increase the amount of funding they pool by 0.5% each year, with a ‘bonus’ to those areas showing the greatest commitment to, and use of, pooled funding;
  
• Councillors should play a new championing role for Local Area Agreements, either on a ward by ward, or individual indicator basis;
  
• Resource and reward systems should be reformed to support the LAA with LAA outcomes linked to individual performance reward grants increased use of cross-agency secondments, and LSP involvement in senior appointments;
  
• Where local areas are successful in delivering their priority outcomes, they should be rewarded with greater flexibility over local funding, including further reductions in ring-fencing and access to other appropriate revenue streams.

There was similar optimism about the direction of Local Area Agreements, with the majority of councils favourable when asked how ‘fully formed’ their Local Area Agreement framework is.

Local Government Minister, John Healey MP has welcomed the report and writes in its foreword:

“[The process of] Agreeing LAAs has been a good start. But the real prize is translating LAA priorities into effective delivery of improvements for citizens over the next three years. In Government we need to build on the progress made during negotiations and ensure sensitivity to local priorities remains central to our policy decisions. This report rightly talks of the need to ensure local agencies and arms of Government unite behind the common LAA vision. I will be looking at this closely with colleagues across Government”.

Chris Leslie, Director, NLGN said:

“There is a great deal of goodwill across local authorities who are keen to make the LAA process work. The real challenge will be moving from deciding the priorities and how to measure progress, to actually managing delivery. This autumn’s “refresh” of the LAA process will be a critical test, especially when the economic context is changing so rapidly. Whitehall in particular will need to double its resolve to stick to its end of the bargain and not shelve these agreements because of financial pressures.”

NLGN is also today launching a new LAA Peer Matching Tool on its website to an area to see which of its peers have chosen an indicator set that most closely mirrors their own. The analysis will then allow authorities to see which indicators they have in common with other areas. It can be downloaded at www.nlgn.org.uk/public/laas/local-area-agreements.

Research published reveals that members of the House of Lords disproportionately come from London and the South East.

The figures, released in a paper by the New Local Government Network think tank, show that over 40% of all Peers live in either London or the South East, with large swathes of the country underrepresented, especially the North of England, the Midlands and Wales. The research shows that many major British cities have little or no voice within the Lords.

The figures also show that Peers based in London and the South East are some of the least likely members to attend the House of Lords whereas those living in the West Midlands, Wales and the North West are far more likely to take part in the business of the House, despite the considerable distances that they have to travel to get to London. Astoundingly, even Peers who register their main address as “Overseas” are more likely to attend the Lords than those living in London and the South East.

On average members of the House of Lords attend 37.79% of all debates, however Peers living in London only register an average of 32.71% and those in the south of England 36.17%. Peers from the West Midlands are the most attentive, registering an average of 50.20%.

Where members of the House of Lords live (please see page 11 of report)

Breakdown of regional location of Peers and attendance record (please see page 16 of report)

The figures are based on public records of where Peers have registered their primary address. In the report, NLGN criticises the House of Lords authorities for refusing their Freedom of Information request to publish information listing the first part of the postcode for each Peer’s primary address, needed to fully establish in which local authority area a Peer resides.

Chris Leslie, Director of New Local Government Network, said:
“The dominance of London and the south east in the House of Lords is not justified by their share of the country’s population. It isn’t fair that the Midlands and north of England are so poorly represented, and that our laws are being written without all corners of the country having a fair say.”

The authors of the report, James Hulme and Nick Hope, claim the figures demonstrate that large parts of the UK do not have a proportionate voice within the Second Chamber of Parliament:

“The House of Lords embodies a real and substantial gap in regional accountability and representation. The information we have suggests that many major British cities such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol and Belfast have little or no voice within the Lords. A significant north/south divide is apparent, with areas in the South enjoying far greater representation than those in the North. London has more Peers than the East Midlands, West Midlands, Wales, Northern Ireland, North East England and Yorkshire and the Humber put together.”

The Government is currently consulting on reform of the Lords following the publication of the Lords Reform White Paper in July 2008. NLGN argue that a reformed chamber should be composed on the basis of fair representation in relation to the population of each region and nation in the UK.