Convergence and Divergence Implementation and local government

1
Convergence and Divergence - Implementation and
local government

2
Small proportion of legislation marks divergence

• This point reinforced if we examine implementation

3
Too soon and top-down?

• Convergence/ divergence misleading? NB Policy
  change
• Policy change over a decade or more
• Luck in Scotland many problems already apparent
• Focus on factors such as unintended consequences
  and political support rather than longer term
  outcomes
• Top down focus follows focus on legislation
• Bottom-up in local government?
• Divergence without legislation
• Comparative implementation

4
Does Devolution Make a Difference?

• Evolutionary change rather than revolutionary
  break
• Some examples of clear divergence FPC, higher
  education (NHS reform, PR)
• Other examples of subtle differences
• Many differences existed before devolution
• Implementation issues reinforce the limited
  divergence argument

5
Top-down conditions

• That there is an understanding of, and agreement
  on, clear and consistent objectives
• That a valid/ adequate causal theory exists, in
  which the relationship between cause and effect
  is direct (i.e. that the policy will work as
  intended when implemented)
• That subsequent tasks are fully specified and
  communicated (in correct sequence) to a team of
  skilful and compliant officials
• That the required time and resources are
  available, and fully committed, to the relevant
  programme
• That dependency relationships are minimal and
  support from interest groups is maintained
• That external, or socioeconomic, conditions do
  not significantly constrain, or undermine, the
  process

6
Fewer problems in Scotland?

• Fewer problems of compliance
• More group support
• Access v influence?

7
Mental Health

• General satisfaction with consultations on health
• huge ownership
• Lack of legislative time in Westminster
• Consultation on principles, detail,
  implementation
• Formulation of 3rd Act influenced by monitoring
  of implementation of 2nd

8
Homelessness

• Best in Europe?
• Initial satisfaction
• Legislation based on task force report
• Housing groups well represented
• Shift from social justice in 1st term to
  punitive/ populist in 2nd?
• Lack of political weight
• Absence of funding commitment undermines
  divergence

9
Protection of Wild Mammals

• More compliance problems in England?
• Issues of police resources and rural areas common
  to both
• Lack of bill clarity in Scotland
• Loophole on flushing out
• More foxes killed than before
• Hunts continue in different form

10
Higher Education

• Convergence (focus on FE deferred fees) and
  divergence
• Lack of clarity over bursaries
• Implementation issues constrained policy
  formulation
• Reliance on Inland Revenue undermined prospect of
  separate collection system
• External effects

11
Background to Community Care and Health Act

• Sutherland Report Scotland accepted
  recommendations
• Free provision of certain types of care
• Hotel costs still exist
• Capital Threshold/ means-test abolished for
  assessment of care but not for hotel costs
• Issue of top-up payments to be made easier
• Deferred payments (as in England). Fees taken
  from estate.

12
Teething problems

• Delayed implementation
• IT procedures
• Staff training
• Predictions
• Budget pressure
• Explanations of free to public

13
The definition of free

• Many already qualified for free care (personal
  and hotel costs) if they had savings/ capital
  below 18, 500
• Free personal care defined at 145 per person
  per week
• Extra 65 per person per week if qualified for
  nursing care
• Previous Attendance Allowance between 38 and
  56 (not means-tested)
• Therefore free is actually extra entitlement
  (FPC AA)
• Convergence could occur without policy statement
  in England, without calling it free
• Some evidence of this convergence? nursing care
  payments have risen to a maximum of 120 per
  person per week

14
The role of local authorities

• Individuals claim but local authorities
  reimbursed
• The money is not ring-fenced and the Scottish
  Executive does not fully control it
• 2 aspects of local authority influence

15
(1) Unintended consequences with private care
homes

• Scottish Executive/ local authority negotiations
  of general funding
• Local authority/ care home provider negotiations
  for fee per patient
• Church of Scotland closures
• Open secret of self-funders paying for others
• So the 145 is offset by the extra cost

16
Source Bell, 2003
17
(2) FPC at home

• Success of policy in reduction of hidden need
• Difficult to identify
• In the past many local authorities did not charge
  the full rate
• So the fee for self-funders has not gone from
  145 to zero
• For some local authority subsidised care funded
  by AA replaced by local authority care funded by
  Scottish Executive

18
Other factors

• No real evidence of fee deferment
• External factors demographic change
• Labour market and reserved choices

19
Source Audit Scotland, 2004
20
Other unintended consequences?

• AA confusion
• Discretion and English classifications
• Conclusion
• Less difference than free personal care
  suggests
• NB importance of implementation in England

21
Summary

• Analysis of Legislation shows evolutionary
  change
• Analysis of implementation suggests divergence
  less visible than policy suggests
• Bottom-up approach apparent?

22
The Bottom up approach

• Too much focus on failure rather than policy
  influences
• Shouldnt assume central government is the most
  influential actor
• Hierarchical influence/ legislation may be only
  one of a number of influences when decisions are
  made at lower levels of government
• They contend with lower level institutions and a
  consideration of local demands
• While this lower level autonomy may be
  exaggerated, the bottom-up focus may help explain
  why the Scottish Executive may lose control of
  policy after it devolves the detail and finance

23
The role of Local Government

• FPC shows local government importance, but what
  is general significance?
• Local government support crucial to devolution
  movement
• Spending accounts for 33-40 of Scottish
  Executive expenditure
• 10-15 of total Scottish workforce 45 public
  workforce Glasgow is Scotlands biggest
  emplloyer
• Central to much Scottish Executive activity -
  education, roads, social inclusion/ justice and
  involved in joint working with health authorities
  over community care
• Local government resources - it employs all local
  service staff, it has local expertise, it
  controls policy implementation, it has some
  independent tax raising powers, and it has a
  local electoral mandate.

24
Why does the Scottish Executive need local
authorities?

• Deliver local services in accordance with
  national political and financial priorities
• Tailor services to local needs and circumstances
  as efficiently as possible
• Conduct themselves in a manner which is
  compatible with the financial, political and
  social parameters set by the centre
• Espouse values of local democracy in order to
  legitimise the democratic nature of Scottish
  society within which the Scottish Executive
  operates
• (McConnel, 2004 211-12)

25
Why do local authorities need the Scottish
Executive?

• Provide the legal and policy basis for councils
  to undertake their activities
• Provide significant financial resources more in
  week 9.2
• Engage in policy consultation in order to ensure
  the practicality of policies
• Give councils as much legal, financial and
  political autonomy as possible in order to
  represent local communities

26
Factors incompatible?

• Levels of autonomy the sticking point?
• E.g. income generation - business rates affect
  profitability domestic rates influence the
  housing market both influence government
  popularity
• Expenditure - local pay agreements may undermine
  a national approach, capital expenditure plans
  affect macro-economic policy

27
Problems addressed with central control

• Legislation (primary/ secondary)
• Circulars
• Best Value (and threat of CCT)
• Finance
• Charge of excessive imposition is the least
  risky option?
• Change since Thatcher but on understanding that
  not abused
• E.g. LG Act 2003 gives general local authority
  powers or freedoms (and makes Scottish Executive
  look good) but these are restricted in practice

28
Developments since devolution

• Scottish Executive closer and more open
• More legislation necessary for local governance
  (e.g. Education and Training Housing 2001) and a
  greater local authority role in pre-legislative
  consultation processes (NB policy capacity).
• COSLA the most consulted by the Scottish
  Executive since devolution
• Local authorities as a training ground for MSPs
  in other words, many MSPs still have a local
  authority background.

29
However, mixed picture

• Creature of Parliament but with degree of
  autonomy
• Extension of subsidiarity envisaged (NB Scottish
  Office parallel), but the greater the
  central-local contact the more central control?
• Good informal relations, but still formal
  mistrust across tiers (old politics?)
• Variable contact by policy area, relations by
  issue
• Opposition parties less likely to laud the
  Scottish Executives openness

30
And factors which undermine SLG

• Councillors believe Scottish Executive has
  reduced role of SLG
• Mistrust of civil service and command model
• Politician and civil service mistrust of SLG
  abilities to deliver
• Lack of shared objectives?
• Reduced policy capacity after reorganisation
• COSLA crisis
• Centralisation not relaxed after devolution
  finance (grant dependency, ring fencing, property
  taxation inflexible, capping) and use of quangos/
  agencies to deliver from the centre
• Imposition of PPP?
• NB Westminster/ Whitehall (e.g. housing benefit)
• So we should not get too carried away with SLG
  autonomy
• partnerships aspirational/ good PR?

31
However, however

• Scottish central local relations better than UK?
• Closer working relationship also apparent now
  (e.g. in Community Planning)
• Pre-devolution problems with CCT, poll tax,
  rate-capping, reorganisations
• But greater ability to maintain personal
  contacts
• Now less enforcement of Best Value less CCT and
  other tendering
• Central-local relations higher on Scottish
  Executive agenda
• More of a light touch in auditing
• Some ability of SLG to obstruct modernisation and
  Best Value
• In other words, the argument may be if you think
  things are bad in Scotland, have a look at the
  rest of the UK

32
However, however, however

• Similarities remain, given the influence of
  inheritance and MLG
• powers of well-being, Best Value, retention of
  busienss rates at the centre, ring-fencing of
  grants in accordance with central priorities,
  support for citizen participation and
  encouragement of various means to boost electoral
  turnout