Examination of Witnesses (Questions 424-439)
PROFESSOR VERNON
BOGDANOR CBE AND
PROFESSOR TONY
TRAVERS
8 DECEMBER 2008
Q424 Chair: I will just say again that
there is likely to be a vote at 5.35 so that is when we will disappear
and our session with you will end and we will come back after
exercising our duty as Members of Parliament to then deal with
the last lot of witnesses. That is why we are quite keen to motor
through the topics. Can I start off with the issue of why each
of you thinks that local democracy is important for the health
of the nation? As a kind of flip side to that, why do you think
there are such low levels of public trust and participation in
local democracy? I guess I was very struck by the point that Professor
Bogdanor made in his written submission which is where he is suggesting,
I think, that the main barrier to a rebalancing of power is not
the constitution, it is a whole cultural, political thing out
there which presumably includes the public as well.
Professor Bogdanor: I do believe
that the main barriers, as you suggest, are not constitutional
but cultural, but I also believe there may be institutional ways
of helping to change that culture. I have, in my written evidence,
suggested various reforms: a reform of the finance system, greater
use of instruments of direct democracy, reform of the electoral
system and, more directly elected mayors. As to your question
on why local government is a good thing, I think there are a number
of answers to that. Firstly it is government by lay people who
are not professional politicians and therefore it will enable
more people to understand the workings of democracy. There are
around 24,000 elected councillors who are mostly not professional
politicians and they are able to understand the difficulties of
making decisions in a democracy. That must be good, surely, for
the health of the country. Secondly, I believe that diversity
is a good thing in itself and I believe that it will help to produce
better public policies. I have given an illustration—I think
a very graphic one—in my written evidence from John Kay
of the Financial Times who talks about the experiment with
comprehensive education in the 1960s. He said that it was not
inherently foolish but what was wrong was the scale of the experiment
and the absence of honest feedback on progress. I think we are
more likely to get that in a diversified system. Finally, I think
that a good local system can stimulate local patriotism. People
may say in Oxfordshire, the county where I live, that they do
not get enough money from central government but their schools
are very good and they have done wonders with very small amounts
of money. No doubt in Berkshire they say the same and in Buckinghamshire
and so on—so there is healthy competition. Devolution may
be stimulating that sort of sense between Scotland and England,
a sense of healthy competition. I feel the danger with services
run at a national level is that they sometimes tend to institutionalise
grumbling because if you say in a national service that things
are not going very well the Government will say, "Splendid,
we will switch resources to some other service in that case"
so you always have to say in a national service that you need
more money and that things are good enough. That does not give
you a good sense of morale in a public service.
Q425 Chair: I might point out that
some of us started our professional politician career in local
government where we learned the skill. I would quibble with you
as to whether they are not professional politicians; we were just
not paid when we are in local government.
Professor Travers: I build on
what Professor Bogdanor has said. The issue of distance I think
is important in understanding trust. This point has already been
touched on: if decisions are made by politicians in Government
who are a very long way away from what are often relatively local
implications and local results of those decisions, I think it
is impossible to imagine the politicians concerned being able
to get any signals directly, other than through Members of Parliament
that they speak to, when they come to make those decisions. The
capacity for any individual to influence the person making the
major decision in Whitehall or Westminster is very, very unlikely
to occur. It is very likely to be that kind of capacity to influence
those making decisions. That distance I think will affect trust.
To answer your first question—why would better and stronger
local democracy be good for the nation?—the strength of
local democracy and the powers of local government are, I think,
enormously tied up with the whole operation of politics. It is
where people learn about democracy, which is the point you just
made yourself, Chair. If local government and local democracy
were to wither and die—or were to wither too much—it
is inconceivable that it would not affect Parliament because they
have the same roots. The one root goes through the other into
local political activism. Local democracy is essential for parties,
parties in our system are essential for democracy and therefore
Parliament itself depends on local government and local democracy.
Q426 Mr Olner: I take issue with
the connection, Tony. I can well remember when the first shackles
were put on local government; that was when the lovely Ken Livingstone
lived over the way and upset Margaret Thatcher who was the prime
minister of the day. That prime minister of the day took away
a lot of local autonomy from local authorities. That was a political
action against local politicians who were politicians. The other
thing was actually the right to buy council houses when there
was absolutely nothing that the local authorities could do to
put back into their communities the problems that the sale of
council houses would do for them.
Professor Travers: I think we
are agreeing, actually. My point is that if decisions are made
to remove power to the centre then it sends a signal within the
locality that local democracy is less powerful therefore fewer
people are likely to be interested and involved in it and therefore,
over time, there will be less political activism but that will
not only affect local government. As you will know better than
me, local activists are what make up politicians, local parties,
that help you fight elections. That is the simple point I am making.
Q427 Andrew George: Professor Travers,
you say at the end of your evidence that "Parliament, as
the pinnacle of British democracy, would also gain from a revival
in local government". That sounds to me that if you make
that argument and you can persuade Parliament, then we are on
to a winner. How are you going to persuade us that actually it
is in Parliament's interest that we will benefit so much from
a revival in local democracy?
Professor Travers: It is an extension
of the point I have just made. If local democracy were truly vibrant
and really galvanised then my hunch is that for all the political
parties represented here you would have more activists locally;
there would be more people joining political parties, interested
in government and politics, taking an active part in conventional
political activity. That would not only strengthen local democracy
but it would therefore directly strengthen Members of Parliament's
capacity to compete and all parties would benefit from that. That
would strengthen democracy not only at the local level but at
the national level.
Q428 Andrew George: You both argue,
I think, passionately in favour of stronger local democracy. I
do not know whether it is fair to assume that you prefer decentralisation
to happen at as fast a pace as possible, but how do we achieve
the speed of change to decentralisation? What does the Government
need to do in order to achieve the kind of speed of change to
decentralisation which you feel might be required?
Professor Bogdanor: I think one
would need politically to strengthen local government and I think
one of the ways in which one might do that would be by directly
elected mayors, particularly in the conurbations. There are very
varied views about the Mayor of London and his predecessor, but
I think few would deny that both Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone
have made local government more exciting. It is interesting that
the turnout in the recent London Government elections was 45 per
cent which is higher than the average turnout in local authority
elections. Various views are held about both Boris Johnson and
Ken Livingstone but they are independent minded figures and independent
minded figures who can stand up for their particular authority.
I think it would be only to the good if we had similar people
in Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds and so on who would
be Mr or Miss Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds et cetera
and stand up for their authorities. I think such people would
be more likely to be able to resist the depredations of central
government.
Q429 Chair: Do you see this as universal
model or only for cities and regional bodies, which is essentially
what London is?
Professor Bogdanor: Yes, well
Regional Government as I understand it: I think here is a strong
intellectual case for regional government. But it has been rejected
by the voters of the North East and I imagine that it is not on
the political agenda now, but certainly if other authorities would
like a mayor—I suppose in rural areas you would call the
person a sheriff—or a directly elected political leader
I feel that would contribute greatly to the strength of local
government.
Dr Pugh: You are saying it contributes
to the strength of local government. The argument you have given
so far is that it increases the turnout and that is not the same
thing, is it? You could argue that it would increase the turnout
at a general election if we elected a president at the same time.
What is the benefit of a mayor as opposed to a broadly based representative
group of politicians reflecting their own individual areas?
Q430 Sir Paul Beresford: Can I piggyback
on that? I personally think that that is a red herring. If you
go back to the 1980s there were a large number of strong leaders,
including Ken Livingstone, who had the same sort of role and in
local government elections, certainly in London, the turnout was
65 to 70 per cent. So it is actually more the fact that they were
freer and they had the personalities. If you do not have the personalities
it does not matter whether it is the leader of a council or a
mayoral candidate.
Professor Bogdanor: If one looks
at the history of British local government there are very few
people in its history who have built a strong local government
base for themselves—Joseph Chamberlain, Herbert Morrison,
Ken Livingstone—it is difficult to think of a large number
of other people. I think the increase in the turnout is an important
point because I think the low turnout is a sign that people do
not value local government as much as they might. One of the reasons
for that is they sometimes find it difficult to identify with
their local authority. Surveys have shown that very many fewer
people are able to name the local authority leader than they are
a mayor; the mayor is much more publicly identifiable not only
in London but in other areas that have chosen mayors as well.
Secondly, mayors are less likely to be the tightly organised party
figures that there are in local government. I said in my evidence
that local government is now much more tightly organised from
a party point of view than the House of Commons itself. I think
that puts some people off local government; it is too tightly
organised.
Chair: I am quite keen that we do not
spend the rest of this session arguing about mayors, especially
as it is becoming increasingly evident that if we do make any
recommendations as a Committee it is not likely to be along the
lines of that wished by Professor Bogdanor since most of us seem
to be against them. I would like to move on because I do not want
to get hooked on that constitutional point. Andrew?
Q431 Andrew George: You both seem
to imply that at local authority level both turnout is low and
there is a perception amongst the public that the capacity is
rather questionable as well. How do you overcome the perception
or existence of low capacity or lack of capacity at local authority
level? Is it a question of front-loading the powers first or do
you need to build up the capacity or perceptions of local government?
Professor Travers: I am not sure,
especially given that the Chair has made the point that many of
the people sitting round the table here have been members and/or
leaders of local authorities, I am not sure I actually agree with
the contention that there was a lack of skill and expertise and
wisdom in local government. I think many of the best local authority
leaders are extraordinarily good at what they do, even if their
names are not that well-known. Of course there will be those who
are less good because it is a very large number, as the point
has been made clear (we are talking about 20-odd thousand elected
representatives). But you are definitely correct that if local
government was seen to have more power then more people who were
interested in political power would be drawn into it. I just use
a very simple rather stylised way of putting it. If local government
set income tax levels I do assure you that turnout would go up
and I do assure you that more people would be interested in going
into local government.
Q432 Mr Betts: Three of us have just
been to Denmark and Sweden where they have a more formal constitutional
position. The Danes, for example, would claim that they actually
inspired the whole idea of a European Union charter of local self-government
which we have signed up to but I think a lot of people would think
signing it has not made a lot of difference; it is hardly worth
the paper that it is written on in terms of application in this
country. Do you think we can do anything more to actually enforce
it and make something real out of it?
Professor Bogdanor: As I said
in my first answer, I think that constitutional statements, although
valuable, need to be backed up by a renewed political strength
in local government and therefore I believe that reforms are needed
in our current local government system. One of the other reforms
I suggested to make local government stronger is a reform of the
electoral system which would mean you have fewer uncontested wards
in local authorities and, secondly, a greater degree of direct
democracy—double devolution in the jargon—so that
the people themselves can help to make decisions. People already
have the right to call for a referendum on an elected mayor—I
am sorry to mention that again—and if you give them that
right on that limited issue why not rights on other local authority
issues? Why should there not be petitions on other issues? I gather
the House of Commons is currently looking at reforming the petition
system. The initiative at local level would go beyond the petition
because it has a specific consequence but it might excite further
interest in local government and once people get interested in
local government they are more likely to defend their local authorities
against the depredations of the centre. At present local government
does not have a powerful enough constituency.
Q433 Mr Betts: In terms of Scotland
and Wales we have got de facto a constitutional arrangement
now. In the end it is just an Act of the UK Parliament that has
created the devolved parliament and the devolved assembly, but
I do not think that anyone could conceive a situation where this
Parliament could simply legislate now to terminate the Scottish
Parliament or the Welsh Assembly or substantially alter its powers
without agreement. Is that not a different constitutional position?
Professor Bogdanor: Certainly.
The reason for this I think is that referendums were used to establish
Scottish and Welsh Parliaments but there might be another way
in which you could entrench it and that would be the way in which
the Human Rights Act was entrenched. As I understand it, the Human
Rights Act states that all legislation must be interpreted in
accordance with its provisions whether passed before or after
the Human Rights Act. So later legislation which impliedly goes
against the Human Rights Act would be met by the courts with a
declaration of incompatibility. If you treat the charter for local
government as an analogue to the European Convention of Human
Rights—a kind of communitarian analogue—you might
have something of that kind, in saying that legislation which
goes against this charter ministers should at least have to declare
it goes against the charter, and give their reasons and you might
want to bring in the courts if you really wanted to entrench such
a provision. That would be something you could do without a complete
constitution.
Professor Travers: I think that
Britain's constitutional history makes the creation of a full
constitution at this point very, very difficult. I think the flexibility
of the British model of government is so treasured by those who
operate it that however much intellectuals and others may push
for a constitution they may be struggling for some time to come.
However, that does not mean that our constitution is at all times
incapable of offering something akin to constitutional protection
and it would have to come, I think, if it is within the existing
system, from Parliament because Parliament can do what it wishes
and therefore Parliament would be free to build in quasi constitutional
protection for local government if it so decided. I think it can
be done but hoping for a British constitution to save everybody
will mean waiting too long.
Q434 Chair: Can I just ask about
this idea of the independent commission? There are two suggestions,
I think. One is the suggestion made by Professors Jones and Stewart
about an independent commission that would oversee the kind of
constitutional relationship and the other one is an independent
commission that would dish out the money basically. Can I get
your views on either or both?
Professor Bogdanor: On the second
of these suggestions I very much agree with what Professor Stewart
said, that this is a highly political question and not for an
independent commission. On the first suggestion I think the function
would be better performed by a joint committee of the two Houses,
perhaps analogous to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I mention
this because I think that the Council of Europe does regard the
Charter for Local Government as being a kind of communitarian
analogue to the Human Rights Convention: the one defends the rights
of individuals, the other defends the rights of communities. Therefore,
perhaps by analogy with the Joint Committee of Human Rights, you
could have a joint committee on central and local relations whose
function it would be to report each year on the state of relations
and on the state of local government. I think that would be of
great value.
Professor Travers: I agree. They
are separate functions. If this House and the House of Lords decided
to provide constitutional protection then that is one function.
There is a separate function which could be fulfilled by an independent
grants commission which personally I think I would support. However,
I realise that for politicians to give up that degree of freedom,
even if it is a desirable thing, is optimistic. I would have them
as two separate functions.
Q435 Mr Olner: The Baby P case came
to the fore by being raised nationally. Do you actually think
that national politicians are frequently held to account for the
failings of local government and how can we redress that problem?
Professor Bogdanor: Yes they are;
I think that is absolutely correct. That is not simply due to
national politicians seeking power for themselves, it is because
voters hold them to account. I agree with what Professor Travers
said a few minutes ago, that in theory a local government system
should be more accountable because it is much easier to complain
to your local councillor or to a local officer than it is to find
the officials who are responsible for a national service.
Q436 Mr Olner: I accept that, Professor
Bogdanor, but they find national politicians to complain to and
hold to ransom.
Professor Bogdanor: Indeed and
this began in the 1970s with the education service when there
were worries about it; people were not satisfied with being told
"Go and see your local councillor". They said, "You,
the Government, promised to improve the education service"
and so governments took the power to go with that responsibility.
If governments were held responsible they were going to take the
power to go with that responsibility and we need to change the
attitude of the people if we going to alter that situation. I
entirely share the premise of your question that all too often
national politicians are held to blame for local matters and that
is incompatible with a healthy local government system.
Professor Travers: Again I agree.
We are trapped in a world of our making. The implication of what
we have just heard is that this is something that to some degree
the public wants and effectively it puts the prime minister in
the position of being mayor of England. Everybody expects the
national politicians to answer for really quite small issues and
that puts pressure on national government and the opposition to
react accordingly. It is like a nightmare from which you can never
escape. It would require action across the political divide to
some degree to put an end to it. That would be difficult for the
opposition of the day because it would require them to hold back
while the world moved from the world we are in to the new world,
letting the Government off the hook apparently. I think it would
have to be done with some all party agreement in order to move
from the world we are in. The public would have to be convinced,
as Professor Bogdanor has said, as we moved along.
Professor Bogdanor: May I just
add a very brief point to that? It may be that devolution will
stimulate this demand for diversity and for hands-off politics
because politicians at Westminster are no longer in practice responsible
for domestic matters in Scotland and Wales in education, health
and so on—
Q437 Mr Olner: Not if you read Hansard.
If you read Hansard and what is discussed, what the Welsh Nationalists
and the Scottish Nationalists bring up in Parliament, they are
following the same routes as local government holding the national
politicians to account.
Professor Bogdanor: Although Parliament
is sovereign most ministers accept that they cannot now be responsible
for education and health in Scotland and one wants a similar sort
of self-abnegation in England which devolution could possibly
help to stimulate.
Q438 Mr Betts: Coming back to the
issue of money, the Lyons Report talks about a lot of the issues
and powers and the balance of powers between central and local
government, but really on money we are saying, "Yes, it will
be here and there but it is not really central to change".
Do you agree with that or do you think that if we do not sort
out the proportion of the income that local authorities can raise
we are ever really going to get to any local democracy in this
country?
Professor Travers: The Lyons Report—for
which I was a friend or indirect advisor—was in many ways
trapped in the world in which it lived; it could not escape the
heavily centralised world and quite understandably decided that
the only way out was by small incremental steps in another direction.
The difficulty is that ever since the Layfield Committee successive
governments have committed themselves to making small steps; the
steps have never really materialised and I agree with the tenor
of your question, Mr Betts, that the only way away from where
we are now would be a big move to something different. That would
include very significantly greater local discretion over taxation.
It is worth remembering that overwhelmingly for local authorities
in England most of the money that their tax payers pay in all
taxes just goes up to Whitehall and then is handed back in various
means to them or to other institutions in the area by the Government.
So most of the money in Sheffield is paid by Sheffield tax payers
and then handed back to Sheffield in a way that could easily be
by-passed by Sheffield keeping more of the money.
Professor Bogdanor: I agree a
hundred per cent with that.
Q439 Andrew George: On the related
matter of relating national to local discretion, if we extend
it to the issue of planning, particularly the contentious issue
of housing numbers, to what extent do you believe that the way
to settle issues of affordable housing need are better left to
the discretion and idiosyncrasies of local authorities deciding
off their own back, rather than the method which we are certainly
witnessing at the moment and has been going back for decades which
is central government pretty much indirectly setting those figures
for local authorities.
Professor Travers: This is a fascinating
question because in many parts of the country it would appear
that if left to their own devices local authorities would resist
housing which national government believes is necessary. It is
precisely related to the question that Mr Betts raised on local
government finance because at the moment when local authorities
give planning permission for new homes or for new businesses,
because of the way the grant system operates, they get no benefit.
That is for every extra pound that is paid in council tax or business
rate as a result of a decision made to give planning permission
the grant system will take away a pound in grant. If we had a
different grant system or a way of allowing authorities to keep
some or all of the resources that were generated by new housing
or new business premises, I think their decisions would change.
Milton Keynes has experimented with a roof tax which is on the
way to trying to create a form of section 106 type taxation. I
think that if the incentives were different local authorities
would be less likely to turn down housing than they are at the
moment.
| 
