The Balance of Power: Central and Local Government - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents


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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 20 May 2009