Cost challenge for town halls

The stance taken by Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, is admirable in some regards. Too many decisions have been taken by London-based Ministers when the issues at stake should have been determined locally. It is welcome, therefore, that the one-time Bradford Council leader has declared that the era of "big government" is over.

Yet it would be disingenuous of Mr Pickles to pass the buck completely, and say that it is up to local residents to determine policies and, where possible, instigate services under the catch-all notion of a "big society".

The reality is very different. The service reductions expected of Yorkshire public bodies are compounded by the frontloading of many cuts, in order to accrue the greatest savings while the Government also freezes the council tax. And, while the latter will be welcomed by many – this tax was certainly abused by Labour – it does leave town halls and police chiefs with very little room for financial manoeuvre.

Already, it is abundantly clear that care charges for the elderly will increase, an ageing population will inevitably see demand for social care rise, while the latest indications suggest rural bus services in North Yorkshire are particularly vulnerable – and this is before the number-crunchers get to grips with the financial settlement.

Yet, while there is scope for more local authorities sharing procurement services and back-office functions, these will only achieve a tiny fraction of the savings being demanded by Mr Pickles. Likewise, the abolition of the high salaries and bureaucratic excesses that have caused so much outrage over the years. Though long-overdue, it is abundantly clear that the coalition has, for party political purposes, been exaggerating the scope for efficiencies and some realism will be required as local authorities come to terms with the consequences of yesterday's announcements.

However, there are a number of wider points that need to be taken into account.

First, there needs to be clarity on the basic service that residents should expect. Though Ministers were keen to point out that these are local matters, there are still certain statutory requirements, like the emptying of refuse bins, and provision of a sound schools service that need to be undertaken. Some clarity will be required on the minimum standards that Whitehall will expect.

Second, the biggest proportion of local government spending is swallowed up by salaries. While sweeping reductions in staffing levels are planned, the redundancy costs – and pension liabilities – will be considerable. Keeping some people in work might actually suit the taxpayers' financial interests, a point that Ministers acknowledge.

Third, is it right, at a time of unparalleled financial uncertainty, that Ministers should be embarking upon questionable management shake-ups that will bring about elected police commissioners and the possibility of directly-elected mayors for major cities?

If the strategy outlined by Mr Pickles is to be implemented smoothly, and fulfil his vision of better services for less money, these management changes are likely to be a hindrance. That is why Ministers need to combine their tough action with some pragmatism before the vulnerable pay an unnecessarily high price for the Government's cuts.