Examination of Witnesses (Questions 394-399)
PROFESSOR GEORGE
JONES OBE AND
PROFESSOR JOHN
STEWART
8 DECEMBER 2008
Q394 Chair: Good afternoon. Can I welcome
both of you to this session? As I am sure you are aware, this
is the third session in our inquiry on the balance of power between
central and local government and indeed two of us here spent last
week in Denmark and Sweden learning everything there is to learn
about the relationship between local and central government over
there. We are very grateful to you for being here at this session.
Can I start with your attitude to the Lyons Report where at least
Professor Jones has been quoted as saying that he was "very
pessimistic about the future of local government after the Government's
negative and hasty response to the Lyons Report"? Can I maybe
ask Professor Jones to start and then Professor Stewart to expand
on how optimistic you are about the future of local government
after the Lyons Report and whether it is realistic to expect national
politicians of whatever party to devolve power to the locality?
Professor Jones: We were very
disappointed with the reaction to the Lyons Report by the Government.
It was rejected out of hand by the minister of state on the same
day it was published. Some of its leading recommendations were
just rejected and there has been no further mention or attention
paid to the report in succeeding white papers or in the Act of
last year or the Bill that has just gone to the House of Lords.
It seems to have been totally forgotten. Our view was that the
Lyons Report was a step in the right direction and it was a great
pity that it has not been taken forward. The most important thing
that the Lyons Report said, that we support of course, was that
the country—the Government—faces a choice. There is
a clear choice to be made: do you want decision making on public
services to be concentrated on central government or do you want
it dispersed to a variety of elected local authorities? That is
a clear choice you need to make. Once you have made that choice
you can then design a local government finance system to support
your choice. However, the Government has failed to choose. I notice
also that the Lyons Report has not really been examined properly
by Parliament or by a select committee. There have been some debates,
but it is a missed opportunity; it is very sad for local government.
Q395 Chair: Professor Stewart, why
do you think that the Government did not act on the Lyons Report
and what particular recommendations do you think are the crucial
ones to be implemented?
Professor Stewart: I just want
to say something about my general attitude to the Lyons Report
first because that will colour my answer. I found the Lyons Report
very strong in its analysis of the situation, of the degree of
centralisation, of the degree of intervention and of its effects
on destroying the confidence of local authorities. I found it
much weaker in its recommendations. It opted for an incremental
approach with many of the big issues pushed into the distant future.
My own view is that an incremental approach is not enough. Choices
have to be made, such as the one that George has spoken about
and that really needs a major change in the nature of the relationship,
touching on some of the things we have put in our evidence. The
report was weak for that reason and that was one of the reasons
why it has had little impact. I do not say it would have had an
impact on the Government, but it certainly would have had a bigger
impact on local government and on the informed press.
Q396 Sir Paul Beresford: Would you
not say that the minister's rejection would be in part because
of what you have just said but also because they have actually
answered the question and that is that they want it centralised?
Professor Stewart: Of course there
is a difference between what one might deduce from their actions
and from their words. Their words are that they wanted decentralisation.
The Government is committed to devolution to local government.
Q397 Sir Paul Beresford: Their actions
are the opposite.
Professor Stewart: There are some
movements in that direction but you could hardly say it was a
significant decentralisation so far.
Q398 Mr Olner: Following on from
what Sir Paul was saying, having been involved in local government
myself, it is a question of whether you want local government
to be aspirational in their own communities or do you want local
government to be the police people of central government dictats?
Professor Jones: It depends on
what view you have of the proper role of central government and
its relationship with local government. What has been happening
for the last 30 or so years is that increasingly the central government
has seen local authorities as their executive agents, no different
from other parts of the central government departments. They are
there to carry out the wishes of central government departments
in particular services. They are very service oriented whereas
local government must be valued as providing opportunities for
local people to govern themselves, to shape the development of
their own local communities and not just to be executive agents
of central government. This is the choice that has to be made:
do you want to go in the centralist direction or the localist
direction? The Government has been fudging, in its rhetoric, by
speaking out for decentralisation to local government and to communities
and people, but the reality, despite the reduction in certain
targets and indicators, is that it is still dominated by the desire
to control what local authorities are doing.
Q399 Chair: Can I just tease out
what you have been saying? If local authorities are effectively
delivering a very large proportion of the services that local
people receive, is there not a pressure from the public for there
to be some sort of uniformity, at least in minimum standards wherever
they are living?
Professor Stewart: There is not
really much evidence of a pressure to have the same standard of
service everywhere. What the public want is a good standard of
service. The Lyons Report carried out surveys of public opinion
and if you ask the public if they want a uniform standard of service
they will say yes. They will also say they want the local authorities
to have the right to decide. So a lot depends on the question
you actually ask. Interestingly, in relation to that direct question
about the standard of service being uniform, they were then asked,
"Would you want that or would you object to there being diversity?"
If the public were consulted and they were satisfied with the
standard of service then 70 per cent said that is just what they
wanted. That is really what the public wants; it wants a good
standard of service in local circumstances.
Professor Jones: I think if you
move to a wholly centralised system, let us take the National
Health Service which has been a centralised system for 60 years
and yet it is still delivering unacceptable variations in service
because the most vivid examples of the postcode lottery are in
fact in the National Health Service. If the Herbert Morrison approach
to a national health service had been carried out in the 1940s
and local government had had a major role in health, I do not
believe that there would have been such unacceptable standards
of services. I see no evidence that centralisation automatically
gives you acceptable minimum standards or indeed high standards.
| 
