News

It might be expected that those in local government who argue for more freedom to spend according to local needs would be pleased by the reduction in ring-fencing in this year's local government settlement, as well as by the desperately needed extra money for safeguarding children.

But there are two problems with ring-fencing and national targets and this settlement actually exacerbates one of these.

The first problem, one of principle, is that both ring-fencing and nationally set priorities erode the autonomy of local government. Any perception by voters that local votes can influence important local decisions is undermined. Apathy increases, which gnaws at the very roots of local government. Unless the long-term decline of local government can be reversed, by a genuine commitment to local autonomy on the part of central government, our communities will suffer for it - and so will the government's plans, including those in the children's green paper.


The second problem - a practical one - is that ring-fencing reinforces the national political priorities of the moment, not long-term local (or national) needs. This is where this year's settlement gives serious cause for concern.

Charles Clarke's "pupil guarantee" rigidly frames education expenditure in terms of how much should be spent per child. This draconian combination of ring-fencing and target-setting will attract resources like a magnet. Meanwhile, the ring-fences for carers and for a range of strategies for developing a professional social care workforce have been removed.


Yet a professional and highly trained workforce, across all sectors, is a cornerstone of government policy in every area of social care. And we know carers are still not getting what they are entitled to, despite legislation and years of pressure from campaigners.

It is important to continue to argue forcefully for greater autonomy for local government. But it must be created across the full range of services, strategically - not piecemeal according to the competing whims of ministers. Otherwise, it's not autonomy at all. It just makes councils' balancing act even harder.