Agenda item
Devolution - The Prospect for Hackney
Minutes:
7.1 The Chair welcomed Councillor Jonathan McShane the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Devolution and Tim Shields the Chief Executive for London Borough of Hackney to the meeting.
7.2 Following previous evidence sessions for the Devolution review, the Commission asked the Council’s lead Cabinet Member for Devolution and lead officer to inform them about the Council’s approach to devolution, its plans, ideal scenario and the principles being used to drive forward the Council’s engagement in devolution at different levels.
7.3 In the opening statement the Commission asked for information about the real opportunities for Hackney to influence the devolution discussions; if there is a plan that brings all the elements of devolution together or if the different elements will be led separately.
7.4 The Commission received a verbal update. The main points from the verbal update were:
· There is still no clarity on what the Treasury Department and Government will give up as part of devolution for London.
· Discussion are being held with Leaders and Mayors from London boroughs.
· Health devolution is the only devolution area for London that has made tangible progress.
· In relation to the different devolution areas councils may end up working on different geographies; for example a council could be working with a different group of councils for housing than it would do for skills. However there is an understandable desire in the process for everything to fit neatly.
· In relation to devolution more broadly the current situation is there is no plan. This reason for this is fluidity and continuing discussion.
· If the devolution asks are devolved they are unlikely to be devolved to a borough level.
· Councils are involved in discussion about what will be devolved at either a pan-London level or regional level.
7.4.1 In relation to the health pilots, this is unusually asking for powers to be devolved to a borough level. Hackney unusually has co-terminosity for its local health economy.
7.4.2 The key areas for devolution requests for London are:
· Business rates
· Employment and skills
· Housing
· Criminal justice
· Health and social care
· Transport.
7.4.3 Since the devolution requests were submitted there have been a number of changes to the current political landscape. There is a new Mayor for London, new Prime Minster and new Chancellor of the Exchequer.
7.4.4 Progress of the devolution discussion for the areas of request listed above are:
For business rates, the request is for 100% retention of London’s business rates within London. A request for a fair funding principle. The requests are linked to the work of the Financial Committee led by Professor Tony Travers using the recommendations previously reported. The request in this area is asking for the detachment of London’s business rates from the rest of the country. The response from Treasury to this request is it is unlikely to happen.
7.4.5 In response to a query about Hackney’s involvement in discussions; it was explained for London, there is a lead Chief Executive from Boroughs and for London Councils a lead Cabinet Member; each covering particular areas.
7.4.6 London’s devolution requests are for permissive powers to raise smaller taxes and radical powers such as to setting VAT rates.
7.4.7 There is a representative from London Councils in discussion with Government and the Mayor of London on behalf of London boroughs.
7.4.8 Currently councils are waiting to see what will be provided in the Government’s Autumn statement. London is seeking the ability to retain all rights to the funds raised in London and to be able to use them flexibly.
7.4.9 The main request in relation to housing is the retention of all right to buy receipts within London, so London would be able to use those receipts more flexibly. The other requests in this area for London were nullified by the Housing and Planning Bill.
7.4.10 In the area of Work and Pensions the request from London was for co-location of job centres and co-commissioning for the work programme contracted services. The thought is London may get agreement to co-commission contracted services for approximately £55 million.
7.4.11 In the area of criminal justice system the London ask is for devolution of the management of rehabilitation contracts. To date the offer from Government in this area is to manage the Courts system. The last time local authorities inherited a quasi-judicial service (licensing) it resulted in a cost burden to councils.
7.4.12 In the area of transport the request is for further devolution of transport routes to TfL and concessions e.g. freedom pass legislation. The more devolved to TfL means less cost burdens to councils.
7.4.13 It was noted in the requests were quite limited and generally for pan London level.
7.4.14 One of the devolution areas showing real opportunity is employment and skills. There is currently a pan London review of all further education providers with the aim of consolidating service providers. An example of this locally is Hackney Community College merging with Tower Hamlets Community College. The aim of this exercise is to get a more sustainable sector because many provider are in deficit. The work in this area is separate to the devolution requests.
7.4.15 Following completions of the sectors review the request is for the funding for London to be devolved to 4 sub-regional partnerships by-passing the GLA. The aim is to join up business demand to the skills. The regions would decide on the provision. If this request is granted it would be in shadow form in 2018/19 and then fully implemented in 2019/20. Early signs are the funding request is unlikely to go ahead in the form requested. The funding is likely to be passed to the Mayor of London to develop the skills strategy for London. Boroughs have some influence in this are through the Skills Strategy for London work.
7.4.16 In the area of health, the Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) are the long term vision for the NHS. The emergence of STPs has given impetuous to Hackney to do something different locally. The concern is Hackney could end up with services that are designed and commissioned for East London. Although the benefits could be specialist services there is the risk of losing local focus. STPs are based on a regional setting and the risk is Hackney’s health economy could lose local funding.
7.4.17 The Hackney health devolution pilot needs approval from NHS England so they need to ensure the pilot is aligned. The devolution pilot offers some protection from losing local resources and dedicated focus.
7.4.18 The business case for the pilot was submitted to the London Health Board in October 2016 and this pilot focuses on early intervention, self - care and single point of co-ordination. The vision is to deliver joined up adult social care with NHS services. The view is the unique characteristics of social care make devolution to a borough level more feasible than at a regional or pan London level.
7.4.19 There are a number of ambitious requests for local power such as control over NHS estates. The initial work will involve getting devolution of London’s NHS estate devolved at a pan London level. Devolution of NHS estates will allow better co-ordination and management of primary care estates, leading to better care for residents and alignment of services. The Hackney health pilot is currently working up plans for how devolved estates would operate in practice. Devolution of NHS estate would sit at a Pan London level. Then locally through business cases Borough and CCGs could be given flexibility and freedoms.
7.4.20 To commence this request they are in discussions with Government departments. The current position is all partners are sign-up to the vision and at the table for discussion.
7.5 Discussion, Questions and Answers
(i) Members raised concern about the changes devolution would make to the engagement of citizens with services e.g. access to services and accountability of services.
(ii) Members queried if the health pilot was in danger of being Hackney specific but not transferable for other areas in the health economy to adopt.
The Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Devolution advised in recent years other approaches like one size fits have been tried and nothing has been successful. Hackney is very conscious the pilot needs to be workable for other areas. Hackney wants to make sure the services being designed deliver better services for the people who use the services the most but flexible for all.
In the NHS a national body decides the programme of work for local NHS estates. In relation to NHS estates they have encountered frustration with the quality of primary care estate and this is affecting staff sustainability.
The chief Executive explained if Hackney could be given the freedom, flexibilities and levers, they are confident through the pilot they could take health services to another level and deliver the benefits stated in the business case. Taking the strain out of the other parts of the system in London. In essence this is giving people access to the right care, in the right place at the right time. The aim of the Hackney health pilot is to demonstrate this can be achieved locally.
(iii) Members advised there have been concerns raised by local people about the NHS plans. The response to date has been to provide them with the issued statement by the Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Devolution from LBH. Members expressed concerns about the level of risk and if local authorities were fully aware of the risks they would be taking on for devolution.
The health devolution business case tries to protect resources. LBH is one of the few areas with a sustainable local health economy. The Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Devolution advised the health sector could choose to top slice the budget for local CCGs.
There are plans to run local community engagement events for the devolution pilot proposals.
The key issue is STPs came along after the devolution pilots were agreed. The STPs are part of a national strategy / system. LBH are responding to requests for information to support the process but the Council is monitoring the plans and has not endorsed any proposals.
The Chief Executive pointed out the separation of the two processes was evident when the first draft of the North East London STP did not include or take into consideration the outcome of Hackney’s health devolution pilot. Following comments from LBH this has now been included. Hackney has expressed concern about the STP. It highlights the gap in resources however there is no plan or details about how the gap in resources will be resolved.
(iv) Members commented on the devolution debate needing to change. Highlighting that a key task for London was to demonstrate to Government how services could be changed and improved to make the case for devolution. Members cited the City of Manchester as an example whereby they produced an analysis of benefits from devolution for their region.
(v) Members suggested Hackney should construct analysis of how Hackney residents would benefit from the devolution process. This should be constructed from options they have consulted on and talked to residents about. Members highlighted that citizens’ involvement could provide solutions. Combining vision and democracy.
The Cabinet Member for Health, Social Care and Devolution confirmed they have plans to consult on the changes and what it means for citizens. The Cabinet Member also advised the vision is for all residents to get access to the same level of service provision. The STP will now allow stakeholders to consider the proposals and outcomes from the devolution pilots in London.
There are only 3 health devolution pilots in London.
(vi) Members commented a vision for change is needed despite the change being long term.
The Chief Executive explained the difference between London and Manchester is they do not have the additional layer of government that London has. The closest London boroughs will get to influence the skills devolution is their involvement in the production of the sub regional skills strategy. It is unlikely housing and business rates will get devolved to borough level.
(vii) Members enquired if the Council had principles or Hackney aspirations it would like taken into consideration if a devolution was reduced to a borough level. In terms of vision and approach Members asked for the Council’s aspirations in relation to Hackney’s influence at the high level discussions. It was pointed out there is business rates, skills strategy and health devolution (the most advanced).
The Cabinet Member explained devolution is fluid therefore it was difficult to develop some kind of principles for Hackney people or set a plan. The Cabinet Member pointed out councils need to make sure they are not given areas of responsibility without resources.
In relation to accountability this is viewed as being either pan London level (Mayor) or borough level. The challenge would be if sub regional structures were used, as this would be the weakest level of accountability.
As devolution becomes clearer having some principles that has been developed in conjunction with Councillors and local citizens.
(viii) Members discussed including suggestions for principles as an outcome area from their devolution review.
(ix) Members suggested the boroughs need the involvement of citizens to get solutions for devolution challenges. Hackney should look at finding solution and not wait for Government to provide them with the solutions.
The Cabinet Member expressed that Hackney has a long history of partnership and joint working and this was probably one of the reason the Borough was successful in its devolution pilot bid.
The Commission agreed to ask the Group Director Finance and Corporate Resources to give an update on the progress of devolution for business rates.
|
ACTION |
The Group Director Finance and Corporate Resources to give an update on the progress of devolution for business rates. |
Supporting documents:
PDF 126 KB