‘Phoney War’ was the term used to describe the early months of World War II. Between the formal start of hostilities in September 1939 and Spring 1940, things seemed relatively quiet – at least in Western Europe. After that, of course, the dogs of war were let slip, furious and unmuzzled.
It feels rather like that in local government at present as we nervously await an unprecedented fiscal onslaught. Up to now, though, the forecasts have been fairly vague as to just what will happen when it does arrive. But as the Gazette’s news editor Rachel Rothwell noted (22 April 2010): ‘Local government legal departments are bracing themselves for a double whammy of budget cuts and an increase in workload...’
Good to shareThis ‘air raid’ warning was sounded in the 2010 local authority legal departments survey, conducted by HB Editorial and published in the Gazette’s Local Government 2010 supplement. In the year ahead, 80% of local authority heads of legal believe cost control and budgetary issues will be among the biggest management challenges. And 78% think that shared services with other councils will be one of the main ways of delivering the savings needed. But while this is just what local authorities have been urged to do for years, like everything else in life it is easier said than done. And some careful thought is needed before getting into the cockpit and pressing the launch button.
First off for heads of legal must be a careful strategic evaluation of their particular demand/resource equation and the strategies available to deal with identified gaps. Among these must be the exploration of potential synergies with local and regional colleagues. There will inevitably be uneven patterns of demand and resource across different authorities and value can clearly be added by aligning these effectively. But there is, of course, a world of difference between agreeing a logical plan at heads of legal level and making it happen on the ground. There does need to be real and enthusiastic buy-in from those who will be at the sharp end. And that’s quite a big agenda for all involved.
One head is better than two?But what about management level? Surely heads of legal can’t be shared between authorities? What about prejudice to professional accountability and dangerous dilution of strategic legal management? Yet it’s already happening.
Since June 2009, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) have been sharing their legal head. This came about when RBKC had a vacancy at this level and approached LBHF about sharing their legal officer. It appears that, for RBKC, cost was the driver while for LBHF, in addition to cost savings, there was also the benefit of offering the officer in question ‘stretch’ and increased motivation. The individual is employed by LBHF and an agreement was struck between the two authorities, with the officer in question handling matters such as conflicts of interest and other key issues. Clearly, though, this is not a model which would work everywhere. It is highly dependent upon the willingness and motivation of particular individuals and, of course, local context. But it does at least show that what may have been unthinkable a year or two ago is now entering mainstream thought.
Shared service modelsHeads of legal are going to have to be more creative in aligning demands and resources as the gap becomes larger. The key is to be courageous and open-minded, putting service-users (and the wider stakeholder base) at the heart of strategic thinking. And there are many different approaches.
There is Legal Services Lincolnshire – where lawyers from the county council and five districts have come together to provide unified legal services to their authorities and other partners – and an innovative cross-sector approach at Kent County Council. In Kent the legal team has joined forces with law firm Geldards to provide legal services to clients including other authorities and public bodies. Director of law and governance Geoff Wild says that this ‘will save councils a substantial chunk of their legal budget’.
Local government lawyers interested in shared services will want to take a look at the guide for local authorities on sharing professionals published by Capital Ambition (London’s Regional Improvement and Efficiency Partnership). This was prepared by Tribal and highlighted six potential models:The report (which can be found at London Councils website) is certainly worth careful consideration since it highlights some of the risks, challenges and success factors for each of these models.
- Joint post (as indicated above, one person fills the same post in two or more authorities, managing separate teams and reporting to each authority’s management structure);
- Joint team (two or more authorities share a single team to deliver a service, which is managed by one manager who reports to each authority’s management structure);
- Interims (temporary members of staff are employed by the authority to deliver specific pieces of work for which they have special expertise, on a time-limited basis);
- Consultancy (one or more consultants are commissioned to deliver specific pieces of work for which they have special expertise, on a time-limited basis);
- Secondment (a member of staff at one authority is loaned to another authority on a temporary basis to address a specific skill gap);
- Virtual talent pool (all participating authorities share details of the specialist skills and knowledge they have within their workforce, which can be accessed by other authorities as needed).
Total PlaceBack in 1624 metaphysical poet John Donne asserted that ‘No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main’. The principle holds good. Government thinking (both centrally and locally) is now very much cross-boundary, with a focus on placing service users at the heart of service design and rationalisation to extract maximum efficiencies. This is a seam running through the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 with its leaders’ boards, regional strategy, economic prosperity boards and combined authorities. It is, of course, at the core of the Total Place concept.
Total Place was described in the Operational Efficiency Programme’s Final Report in April 2009 as ‘a programme mapping total public spending in a local area and identifying efficiencies through local public sector collaboration....’ However, following a substantial pilot exercise (with 13 pilot areas, covering 63 local authorities, 34 primary care trusts, 12 fire authorities and 13 police authorities) the skeleton outline was fleshed out considerably in the March 2010 government report Total Place – a whole area approach to public services. As the report points out, the pilots have demonstrated new ways that these approaches could deliver significantly better outcomes. These might include for example specific instances of looking at service provision through the eyes of users rather than producers (as in the ‘Tell us once’ pilots in Kent and Bradford). They can also include developing a collective understanding of how individuals interact with different services and how these patterns could be improved. And to support cross-boundary working, authorities can work at transforming organisational structures and introducing cultural reforms across organisations and professions, as well as supporting integrated multi-disciplinary teams of frontline staff. The March report is certainly worth a careful read since it contains many useful and practical ideas.
Wider still and widerWith shared services and Total Place at the heart of the policy agenda (to the tune of the ever more urgent imperative ‘more from less’) there will be a continuing need for local authority legal heads to widen their focus and horizons, while at the same time maintaining service excellence for their local employers. Among the ducks to be put in line, both in shared services and in relation to Total Place initiatives, will be:While this may be derided as somewhat boring by zealous visionaries in corporate meetings, it is nevertheless vital to put these in place to fit particular circumstances. For all public bodies have trustee accountability to the public;
- Open and honest understanding, and alignment, of proposed objectives and how these are differently perceived, as well as making realistic provision to facilitate organisational and cultural fit;
- Ensuring relevant staff are enthusiastically on board. Redefining the nature of career opportunities in the light of self-perception transformation, flexible work and skill portfolios, and reconfigured notions of job status.
- A thorough understanding of the nature, scope and context of the proposed project(s) and the people likely to be involved, including their skills, strengths and weaknesses. A searching risk analysis and what is required to accommodate or negate critical risks will also be needed;
- Ensuring that legal powers are properly wired-up and in place in relevant decisions to accommodate the proposed project;
- Creating or modifying any necessary organisational, legal or contractual structures to meet requirements;
- Ensuring robustness and transparency of professional, corporate governance and other accountability arrangements.
Charting the changing landscapeLocal government lawyers have always been highly adaptable and resilient and the legal, governance and accountability implications of the changes ahead are going to make these professionals an ever more important part of the corporate landscape. This was echoed by the Gazette survey, which found that 43% of local authority legal heads thought that their department’s role would be enhanced by forthcoming budget cuts. As the old saying goes: ‘It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good.’ And there are a lot of potential benefits to be realised from smarter working and sound strategic collaboration, not least: more efficient, user-centric services; and a workforce fitter for flexible purpose in an electronic age where distance communication can often be as swift as thought. n
Dr Nicholas Dobson is a lawyer specialising in local and public law. He is also communications officer for the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors
No comments yet