Examination of Witnesses (Questions 480-481)
RT HON
NICK RAYNSFORD
MP AND BARONESS
HAMWEE
8 DECEMBER 2008
Q480 Mr Betts: Could I just comment
to your colleagues because I think some of us might feel that
ministers within the CLG and indeed officials are now on a path
of wanting to devolve—it might be less quick than some of
us would like it, and it might not always be in the right direction.
There is a feeling—this goes back to your time as well—that
it was the right way to go to try to create a new balance between
central and local government. There is also the feeling that that
commitment did not always extend beyond that department and local
government clearly has a lot of interest in other central government
departments. I will just give you one or two examples. We had
the draft Regional Assemblies Bill and I do not think there was
a power that any other central government department apart from
ODPM (as it was at the time) were willing to give up to the regional
assemblies. There was the issue you just mentioned about education
grants, which I felt for you on because you had just given commitments
about reducing the level of specific grants for local government
and then the Department of Education simply went and said that
the whole lot is going to be passed down to schools effectively.
Local government could pass it on as a postman, but that was all
the power they had, so that was changed. When we had the Health
Minister before us, Anne Keen, she is almost terrified of the
idea that local authorities might become commissioners for local
health services instead of appointing PCTs. It appears that the
commitment to devolution is almost within one department and not
spread out. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr Raynsford: I think it is an
over-statement but there is an element of truth in this because
unquestionably other ministers in other departments tend to see
issues from the point of view of how their particular concerns
are implemented and if they are the responsibility of local government
to implement them they want to feel confident that that will happen.
There is a degree of reluctance unless they are confident that
things will happen well. In the course of my discussions with
my colleagues—I had endless discussions with very large
numbers—on a lot of issues we gained ground, we won support
for the approach which was a devolutionary approach but it was
a conditional one, it was conditional on evidence of improvement
in performance. I think that is the only way to go. I think it
is the way it should be resumed and sustained in the future, but
I am not going to pretend that it is going to be easy.
Baroness Hamwee: I think there
is a difficulty in authorities not going forward more or less
at the same rate because of being judged on council tax—I
keep coming back to it, but you did as well, Nick—against
what other authorities in the same area or what they are told
by the press are charging. If one gets into a position where some
authorities are given the opportunity to charge more unless they
know that that is going to be understood as a nationwide position
then I think they will have real problems in grasping that.
Q481 Mr Betts: Coming onto the constitutional
position, we had the discussion earlier about the fact that Scotland
and Wales now have a constitutional settlement which will be varied
and added to at various times, but it is inconceivable now that
the UK Parliament would row back from that settlement by passing
an Act without agreement from Scotland and Wales. Is there any
way we could get some agreement on the constitutional position
of local government? We have had ideas put forward about a Central-Local
Concordat, which has almost disappeared without trace, being put
into legislation. Or the charter of local self-government being
put on the same basis as the Convention of Human Rights, on a
legal footing where there could be a joint committee of both Houses
to oversee and monitor the relationship between central and local
government. Do any of these ideas appeal to you in trying to create
a more constitutional settlement between local and central government?
Mr Raynsford: I have to say I
am a bit sceptical about constitutional approaches. You referred
to the particular example of the framing of the regional assemblies
legislation. When central government is required to define what
it is going to delegate or devolve it will always find reasons
to be cautious. I have a view that the right way forward happens
to be one that tries to both incentivise and empower local authorities
to do better and to win confidence that actually they are well
capable of delivering services excellently. I do agree very much
with the view that Lord Heseltine set out, that having powerful
and effective unitary authorities is definitely part of that process.
I think that a series of measures designed to create strong, powerful
authorities with devolution to parish councils and other bodies
to ensure that the local concerns are not ignored, coupled with
a reform of finance along the lines I have described, coupled
with the maintenance of a performance management framework, that
that is the right way forward to build more effective, more confident
local government and to make central government more confident
to agree, through arrangements like LAAs (Local Areas Agreements)
and MAAs (Multi Area Agreements) that local government with its
partners can play a bigger role in defining the priorities for
their area.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not see
a major piece of legislation trying to set out the constitutional
position as likely to be as effective for local government as
I would want to see it. This country tends to do things incrementally.
The idea of a joint committee of both Houses does appeal to me.
I would like to see the local government world, whether it is
the Local Government Association (and some disappointment perhaps
was expressed earlier, I share that disappointment.) I think they
should be much more ambitious but I think they need to play a
part in that not, as I read what happens with the Local Government
Association, they are too supportive of what is going on and are
not sufficiently critical either of central government or frankly
themselves.
Chair: Thank you both very much indeed.
| 
