Productivity plans: What are councils asking for?

Adam Carey analyses the requests – ranging from legislative changes to funding reform – made by councils in the first set of productivity plans submitted to Government last month.

Frustrations with funding, "burdensome" Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and the Government's tendency to implement new policies "without engaging" with the sector fully have featured in the inaugural batch of council 'productivity plans' submitted to the Government.

The former Government first introduced productivity plans in February 2024, setting a submission deadline for July 2024.  

Councils were asked to detail in the plans how their authority has transformed the way it designs and delivers services to make better use of resources, how it plans to use technology to make improvements, how it plans to reduce wasteful spend, and the "barriers preventing progress" that Government can help remove.

A range of requests regarding barriers to progress were made in the final section, with most councils highlighting funding issues as the main problem facing local authorities.

Many councils said they are finding it hard to identify savings in order to balance their budget.

Writing in its plan, Leicestershire County Council said it is facing budgetary issues despite being one of the "most cost-effective" county and county-unitary authorities in England, according to methodology endorsed by Grant Thornton.

It said the council has achieved £79m in savings over the last four years but is still facing a budget deficit of £83m by 2027/28, "meaning further savings or income generation opportunities will need to be identified".

"These are proving increasingly difficult to identify given the savings already made and statutory and other responsibilities of the Council," it said.

Like most other councils, Leicestershire's plan requested that the Government introduce multi-year funding settlements to allow longer-term planning, allow councils greater freedom to spend ringfenced grants and stop the "begging bowl" culture of bidding for funding.

Croydon Council, which issued two section 114 notices in 2020 and has been under government intervention since 2023, said the uncertainty created by one-year settlements and late funding announcements was "a huge barrier to becoming more productive and enabling boroughs to plan services strategically and take invest-to-save decisions".

"Three or four-year settlements would go a long way to solving this," it suggested.

The London borough also said the Government should remove the ringfences and reporting required for grant funding, the number of funding pots should be reduced and that funding should reflect need.

Alongside these requests, Croydon also said the Government should help reduce its "toxic debt" to a manageable level or to reduce its annual debt charges.

Elsewhere, councils made more specific requests, including a call to reform FOI processes.

Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council's plan said: "Servicing Freedom of Information requests has become a significant undertaking for councils. Whilst the principle of the act is supported, the application of it is burdensome."

It added: "The reality is that lots of the requests are from people looking for business, journalistic requests and other local/national government departments, whilst some are of course worthy others have no public interest element yet require work to answer.

"The council ask that government significantly revises the scope of the act to reduce the burden on councils."

Newcastle City Council also asked for changes to FOI, calling for the Government to revisit "outdated legislation and requirements", which included a request to reconsider the "definition for, and therefore use of, the Freedom of Information Act".

It also said the requirements for council meetings to be held in person should be removed, alongside removing the requirement for paper bills and notices.

In addition, Newcastle said there should be data standards in planning.

Greater Yarmouth Borough Council meanwhile highlighted issues with how the Government implements legislation, calling for closer "policy co-design" between central government and local councils.

It said councils had been "hampered by the tendency of Whitehall to design and decide policy that affects councils without engaging the sector as fully and as early as it could".

It argued that this has resulted in initiatives and funds "that are more complicated than necessary and that are difficult and, in some cases costly, for councils to implement".

North Tyneside Council also complained about policy changes that "have been implemented without sufficient consultation with local government on the resource or financial impacts of delivery at a local level".

Spelthorne Borough Council's plan added that the Government needs to give councils adequate time to successfully implement new legislative changes affecting services.

It referenced the new building control regime that required staff to become re-qualified in an "unacceptably short time frame".

It said: "The Government should link up with key suppliers early enough before legislation is in place so stakeholders can develop systems appropriately, e.g. Uniform, National Non-Domestic Rates and Capita, to ensure timely delivery in changes to Government requirements.

"It would assist efficient delivery if key statutory stakeholders (e.g. Environment Agency and National Highways) had sufficient resources so they can respond quickly and effectively on Local Plan consultations and planning applications."

Oxford City Council also called for a series of legislative changes and reforms, including a finalised version of the Data Protection Act, and an updated Freedom of Information Act "that recognises recent technological developments and capabilities".

In addition, Oxford said legislation should be amended for the introduction of selective licensing schemes, to allow the same regime as HMO licensing, where the council can make the decision to review.

It also asked for the introduction of e-sealing to bring the public sector in line with the private sector, and for a review of the timescales given to respond to and demonstrate the impact of legislative changes, especially in relation to property licensing.

Elsewhere, it recommended that more flexible procurement regulations be made to streamline the acquisition of new technologies and reduce bureaucratic delays.

Reform for children's social care services also featured heavily in productivity plans, alongside calls to reform SEND provision.

Rochdale Borough Council said the children's social care market should be better regulated, adding that "there are not enough placements of the right kind, in the right places, which means that children are not consistently getting access to care and accommodation that meets their needs".

It also claimed the largest private providers of placements "are making materially higher profits and charging materially higher prices than would be expected form a functioning market".

"Some of the largest private providers are carrying very high levels of debt, which creates a risk that disorderly failure of highly-leveraged firms could disrupt placements. Regulation of the market to prevent excessive profiteering is required."

Havering echoed the call to reduce profiteering, referencing a September 2023 study from the Local Government Association that suggested the aggregated income of the top 20 childcare providers to be around £1.94 billion, with the top 6 providers making up as much as 85% of the total profit.

Somerset Council likewise asked the Government to "tackle the national problem of profiteering by providers".

The unitary authority also said SEND reforms are "crucial" and asked that the Government consider writing off all Dedicated Schools Grant deficits.

In some cases, productivity plans made recommendations on the future of the Office for Local Government (Oflog).

Havering said the entire regulatory framework should be simplified, "including developing a coordinating role for Oflog".

Similarly, Croydon said the new office should have a coordinating roles, "as servicing multiple inspections limits capacity and hinders productivity".

Wyre Forrest District Council meanwhile asked the Government to review the activities of other regulatory bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency, "that seek 'to the letter' compliance with their statutory codes".

"This may require review of the codes so that they become less onerous and reflect what councils are realistically able to deliver, given their financial situation," it noted.

A panel set up by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will consider the themes and evidence that come from the plans.

Adam Carey