Local Government Finance

Dear Susan Kramer,


I have to thank you for your letter of March 6th and for your continuing recognition of my role as a parent carer, as an advocate, and as a representative of your constituents with a learning disability. Sadly, however, far from refuting my criticisms of Dr Vincent Cable’s ineffectual letter to the Richmond & Twickenham Times on local government finance, you serve to reinforce them - his letter could have been dismissed as a momentary lapse. Vincent can be forceful, as at the start of your party’s leadership election with his well-argued Telegraph article on “localism”. But he failed to highlight this issue in his address to the Lib-Dem spring conference in Harrogate - which in turn has to be rated as a non-event.


You refer to “Dr Cable regularly writing for reform” (not to say having a ‘sofa style’ dialogue at No. 10) and to your colleague Edward Davey’s “continual campaigning” - but the lack of impact and effect has been glaring. By contrast, this voluntary sector spokesman has to welcome David Cameron’s performance at the national nurses’ conference, and the Conservative’s choice of Zac Goldsmith as their candidate in your constituency. New blood is needed - or at least a new and more forceful outlook. [It is an unfair world as I have learnt since the birth of my son 48 years ago in Richmond. And it is this same reality you may have to face despite your full commitment, of which I am personally well aware].


1. First conclusion: The leading and most powerful voices in Richmond are those of its Council and its two MPs. The fact that all three are Liberal Democrat is an added strength - but they owe their powers to their constituents in the first and final instance, not to their political party.


The electorate and its voluntary sector need to ask this question: ‘On what occasion, when, and on what subject have you (or Vincent) agreed with the Council to ask a Parliamentary Question on its initiative and its request?’


1.1 My reasons are as follows:


- British soldiers are losing their lives in Iraq for democracy. It needs fighting for at home.


- The Blair/Brown duumvirate has been castigated in recent days by two former Cabinet Secretaries, Lords Butler and Turnbull, and by the public standard watchdog, Sir Alistair Graham for its “seven mortal sins”. Both share the responsibility for making “political control” - in Downing Street, not in Cabinet - their top priority, no matter what the cost to standards, public trust and democracy, the traditional strengths that underlie Great Britain.


- Labour MPs, understandably, relish remaining in power and in their seats. The responsibility for the present sorry state of affairs therefore lies with Opposition MPs. If they will not use their powers to the full, is it any wonder that the duumvirate denigrate their authority in Parliament - as it does their Cabinet colleagues?


- The Liberal Democrats, both national and local (save for such exceptions as air traffic and the environment) fail to meet the challenges of the media - the tabloids and the likes of Simon Jenkins, in his article last Sunday, for a start.


- Management consultants have their place, but not at the expense of public services. Local elections are held on false premises, because councils, and Richmond’s, refuse to explain the limitations on the powers exercised by Council monitoring officers, and the Deputy Prime Minister. Equal rights and those rights, spin-doctored by the duumvirate to derive from the “post-code lottery”, should be matters of principle rather than enforced in the law. Et cetera….


2. Second conclusion: The Council, to date, has failed to answer the following question from the voluntary sector, the purpose of which is to make full use of that resource, the Association of Local Authorities - whose chairman, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart is beginning to stir its stumps.


“Would you (now) ask the ALA, either direct or through the Council, to require from the Association of Council Chief Executives a review of what it considers are the priorities in achieving better management and administration, and a statement on the options and its recommendations?”


2.1 Central government is already reported as asking this question of individual council chief executives, informally and, in my view, furtively. The question must now be asked formally, and by Councils, with the support of their MPs (and could be asked locally).


2.2 Social Services directors no longer report fully to councils to whom they are principally responsible - a matter that needs correcting. In fact, however, such directors report more fully to Parliament, through their association - one of many causes for the imbalance in our Body politic. The chief executives’ association should be used to help correct this imbalance.


3. Third conclusion: As a representative of our constituents - including those with a learning disability - you are entitled by statute, Section 11 of the 2001 NHS Act, to ask this question of Richmond & Twickenham Primary Care Trusts - and of Kingston’s.


3.1 NHS organisations have a statutory duty “not to exceed their budgets” (a fact spelt out at the Feb 20th board meeting of the R&T PCT, Attachment K, page 3). For years, Richmond has kept within its budget, but this year, 2006-7, it has overspent by some £1.5 million, the amount top-sliced by London Strategic Health Authority. By contrast, Kingston PCT, last year, overspent its budget by £7.5 million, but this year it has been allowed to increase its overspend by £15 million to £22.5 million.


3.2 The NHS will no doubt claim that it has the statutory authority, derived from the Health Secretary, to alter budgets throughout the year (and at her sole discretion?). If so, you are entitled to, and should ask this question of both PCTs and their chairmen: when, how often, and on what grounds were their budgets altered during 2006/7? That same entitlement, under the 2001 Act, applies equally to Strategic Health Authorities. The same question should be asked of the London SHA.


3.3 This question lies at the heart of the problems of the NHS which in turn are symptomatic of the problems created by the Blair/Brown duumvirate for our democracy and its public servants, both in the statutory and voluntary sectors.


4. I could write further and at length, but I will confine myself to this. Both government and the Opposition are owed the support of the voluntary sector - enshrined in the Compact agreement - Jack Straw’s great legacy, as was his description of Tony Blair (awesome, in my view, as a verbocrat and for his dynamism) as a “master of ambiguity”. Faced with the present ineffectiveness of opposition MPs, it is they who should be offered the sector’s fullest support. This I touched on at the March 20th meeting of the Voluntary Sector Community Group, when I referred to the Richmond Charity Appeal for £20 million. This letter is a further contribution which I hope is found helpful.


Yours sincerely






Francis King


cc. Dr Vincent Cable MP

Richmond Council and its PCT

- and its CVS and VSCG