The truth is finally out. Parliament has been told that ministers have no vision for local government beyond carrying out basic functions dictated by Whitehall.

Even while cutting real terms local government funding by 49%, the government usually at least pretends it sees some wider role for councils in shaping the future of their places. But evidence from Melanie Dawes, permanent secretary at the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to the public accounts committee inquiry on local government spending has laid bare the true position.

She told MPs: “We believe that the sector as a whole is sustainable if the amount of resources available to it can deliver the statutory services that it is required to deliver.”

When pressed she added: “We also have an eye on whether there is some flexibility in the system for responding to events, emergencies and so on, or indeed to be able to provide that broader leadership of their area.”

The event – or possibly emergency – she highlighted was Brexit.

Dawes’ revelation is critical for local government as it heads towards next year’s spending review by the chancellor. It prepares the ground for little or no real terms increase in central funding.

The stupidity of ministers taking this position is threefold. By forcing councils further down the road of crisis management of child protection and adult social care, it is putting vulnerable people at risk while driving up demand for public services; it is denying local people their democratic right to shape the future of their communities; and it is undermining the part of the public sector that has most to offer in building a strong social and economic future after we leave the EU.

Set against the government’s crisis funding doctrine, the illness prevention strategy recently launched by the health and social care secretary, Matt Hancock, is a literal and metaphorical sick joke. He enthusiastically talks about “all those who have a role in influencing health: communities, employers, industry, local government, housing, schools and charities” working together to tackle the causes of ill health. “Setting out this vision is just the beginning,” he says. No, setting out the vision will be as far as it gets unless the government stops undermining public health funding.

If only they had the wit to see it, ministers would have a committed ally if they gave strong, empowered local government a major role in shaping the post-Brexit UK. With Whitehall doomed to be buried in the detail of our separation from the EU for many years, ministers will have neither the focus nor capacity to deliver what is needed. Crucially, they will never have the knowledge for each local area of what economic strengths to build on and which weaknesses to tackle.

When it comes to protecting the vulnerable, it is as if decades of scandals, public inquiries and learning lessons never happened. Protection is all about risk. With the system running ever hotter, thresholds for action are repeatedly being pushed up, intervention is happening later, and the risks and the harm are growing. The long-term consequence of this will be damaged individuals who will be a greater burden on taxpayers. The misery and cost could be avoided – but that logic was forcefully rejected in the evidence to MPs.

By defining local government sustainability purely in terms of delivering instructions from parliament and Whitehall, ministers are denying the very concept of communities making their own decisions and shaping their own future.

Local government has a far bigger fight on its hands than simply prising more money out of the Treasury. The problem is not that ministers want to give councils more funding but haven’t got the cash: it’s that they have an ideological objection to the notion of local autonomy. There was a brief moment under David Cameron’s government when it looked as if councils were finally getting the respect they deserve. But it is now clear that after a decade of doggedly absorbing blows as the austerity punchbag, local government faces further pummelling.