Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-183)
MR STEPHEN
HUGHES, SIR
RICHARD LEESE
CBE AND MR
EAMONN BOYLAN
10 NOVEMBER 2008
Q180 Chair: I think we are getting
into areas which are outside what we should be discussing. Do
you want to just clarify, Sir Richard, what you meant by deficit?
Sir Richard Leese: By deficit,
it is those parts of the regional economy that in comparative
terms are performing worst. Cumbria has largely a declining economy,
so there is not—I think you are right, Chair, we probably
are straying, but there is an argument about whether for a Regional
Development Agency, you put money into opportunities for growth
or you put them into failing economies. At the moment, more money
goes into failing economies than into opportunities for growth,
which gives you an element of redistribution.
Q181 Mr Betts: The Central-Local
Concordats hardly caught the public imagination. Has it caught
the imagination of local authority leaders?
Mr Hughes: Not really.
Sir Richard Leese: No.
Q182 Mr Betts: But there is a big
issue in there, is there not, somewhere in there, to be teased
out? It is interesting, say, in Parliament, when Scottish legislation
comes forward, it is treated as constitutional legislation and
it goes on the floor of the House; when local government legislation
comes up, it is treated as any other legislation, it just goes
through as an ordinary bill. It is inconceivable now that Parliament
could just rip up the Scottish Parliament legislation and bring
everything back to Westminster, but it is inconceivable it would
do it without the consent of the Scottish people. Is there any
possibility of getting local government on to a similar basis,
where there is some inherent recognition of local government's
constitutional position, and Parliament would do things by consent
with local authorities, rather than simply imposing things?
Mr Hughes: There has to be an
argument for looking at that, to have proper constitutional protection.
Lots of other countries do, we do not, that is partly because
we have not got a written constitution anyway, and the way in
which local government has evolved, but I think there are lots
of things that could be done which would have a much quicker benefit
in the shorter term than perhaps worrying about constitutional
matters. The priority, I think, for Birmingham would be about
not necessarily changing the relationship in that way, but getting
clearer control over all of the public spending resources that
are occurring in the local area, because we think that if we can
do that, we can deliver things much more efficiently than they
are currently being done.
Sir Richard Leese: I think there
is a very powerful argument for almost creating a constitutional
position for local government in England, because it does not
exist at the moment, but it would not be my immediate priority,
and questions about the current economic state, what we have been
saying about worklessness; for me, the priority would be getting
powers that allows us to get on with doing those things, rather
than going through a period of constitutional change. So perhaps
when times are a little bit easier would be the time to be able
to do that, but it is not a priority at the moment.
Q183 Mr Betts: So it is a medium
or longer-term objective rather than in the immediate future?
Sir Richard Leese: It would be
for me, yes.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed, we
have enjoyed some of the points you have raised, and teased them
out. Thank you for your contribution.
|
