Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660-666)
RT HON
HAZEL BLEARS
MP
12 JANUARY 2009
Q660 Mr Betts: When we went to Denmark
and Sweden we saw two models of local authority that you could
argue have got more local accountability and democracy and are
less centralised than ours. The Swedish local authority seemed
to have the ability to spend at levels they felt were appropriate
in their community, both individually and collectively. Denmark
had a slightly different approach, where the local government
association sat down with central government each year and recognised
that central government had a right, from a macroeconomic policy
point of view, to determine the overall amount that local government
spent or to influence it very strongly, and they reached an agreement
about the totality of local government spending, and the local
authority association went away with its members and looked at
how that should affect the budgets of each individual council
throughout the country. Do you think that might be a more grown-up
way of doing things than we do in this country?
Hazel Blears: I was just about
to say that sounds like a very mature system that has probably
developed over a fairly lengthy period of time. I would hope that
the direction of travel that we are now embarked upon is about
that growing maturity. I hope members of the Committee will have
seen in recent times much more joint activity between Government
and particularly the LGA, the IDeA (Improvement and Development
Agency for local government), the other organisations that come
under the umbrella of the LGA, and I think you are seeing a different
kind of relationship. I cannot say to you that next year we are
going to get the LGA to set the budgets of individual councils
because I do not think we are anywhere near that stage, but I
genuinely do have a sense that the LGA are moving on from simply
being a lobbying organisation to being much more about partners
in delivery. I welcome that enormously and I think that is a sign
of the maturity of the sector and I am very keen to do more work
in that area. If you look at the Concordat, I have taken the opportunity
to refresh myself on that, and I think it is paragraph 9 of the
Concordat which asked central government to do certain things
when we signed it a year ago in terms of reducing inspection regimes
or reducing the performance indicator requirements and freeing
up flexibility on ring-fenced grants, all of which we have managed
to do. I think it is quite important that we take a look at regular
intervals at that Concordat and see just how far we can move to
perhaps a more mature relationship. I would love to go to Sweden
and Denmark and have a look for myself. I will have to see if
I can get out of the office.
Q661 Mr Betts: One of the recommendations
from Lyons that has been put to us in some evidence is that, given
that central government is likely at least to pursue in future
to determine what you said, the vast majority of what local government
spends, there should be at least some sort of independent oversight
of that, probably greater transparency, a greater ability to provide
independent and unbiased evidence to Parliament about what is
precisely going on, so I think for some sort of independent commission
to be established which might even go so far as to determine the
settlement between authorities but certainly would give Parliament
an unbiased and authoritative view about precisely what was going
on in terms of extra burdens on local authorities and what the
real effects of the financial settlements were. Would you support
that?
Hazel Blears: I would much rather
the parliamentary system, including select committees like your
own, had the opportunity to have a minister in front of them and
not the head of an appointed commission. I fundamentally believe
that it is right for Parliament to scrutinise people like myself
who are elected to make decisions, other secretaries of state,
and be able to inquire in that way. The more transparency we can
get the better and I think the local government finance system
is a bit Byzantine to most people, so making it more straightforward
I think is right, but I think the accountability absolutely should
be with ministers.
Q662 Andrew George: Moving on to
constitutional issues, given that the Government signed up to
the European Charter for Local Self-Government in 1997 and they
ratified it in 1998, to what extent would you say that the Government
is compliant with that Charter?
Hazel Blears: I think we are pretty
compliant with the Charter. I went along to what I think was a
Council of Europe meeting in Valencia last year which was looking
at the implementation around the Charter, both in terms of regional
government but also in terms of local government and citizen involvement,
and I think on all of those criteria we were making quite significant
progress.
Q663 Andrew George: The Council of
European Municipalities and Regions and others also in their evidence
have suggested that we are not compliant with Articles 2, 4, 8
and 9. Would it be possible for you to perhaps provide a note
to us to demonstrate the extent to which the Government is compliant
with those articles in particular?
Hazel Blears: I am certainly more
than happy to do that. I think there are different interpretations
about what compliance looks like, depending on your perspective,
but I would be more than happy to supply the Committee with that.
Q664 Chair: Can I ask finally about
whether you see Parliament as having a role in monitoring the
relationship between central and local government? There have,
for example, been suggestions of maybe a joint Commons/Lords committee
which would, like the Regulatory Reform Committee, monitor what
was going on and make sure that no new legislation was shifting
the balance of power in the wrong direction, from local to central
government, so would protect the current settlement though allow
more devolution if the Government wished to do it. Do you think
there is a role for that?
Hazel Blears: I think I remain
to be convinced. I am never in favour of more committees unless
there is a real reason for doing it because sometimes I worry
that that takes resource and focus that ought to be properly being
used to deliver things to people and sometimes I think ordinary
citizens get a bit frustrated if everything is about process.
It takes me right back to the beginning: it should be about delivering
better jobs, more skills, better health services, so I remain
to be convinced of the merits of that suggestion but I would be
perfectly happy to look at it.
Q665 Mr Betts: But there is something
different, is there not? The Scottish people know that they have
a devolution settlement which in reality even the UK Parliament
or central government really could not change without the consent
of the Scottish people. In this country, in England, say, with
local government, for all your nice words today, which many of
us might agree with, it could all be reversed at the switch of
a departmental decision. The Treasury could have a look and change
it, the Secretary of State could change many of those things and
just reverse the process without the consent of local government,
without the consent of local communities. Is there anything we
can do to ensure that there is more permanence to the sorts of
changes that you are bringing about and want to see developed
in the future?
Hazel Blears: I think it is always
a fascinating debate, and I say that in a genuine way because
I wrestle with some of this. We have a system in this country
of parliamentary sovereignty. We do not have a written constitution.
Governments that are elected and take a mandate from the people
have virtually untrammelled power other than European frameworks
of human rights, but within that they have fairly untrammelled
power to change the way in which this country runs and to do that
by passing Acts of Parliament. It is not just the decision of
a secretary of state. You have to take your legislation through
Parliament, you have to argue through it and you have to win it.
That, I think, is quite precious in our system. If we had a written
constitution that set out people's rights, responsibilities and
our institutions, then I would want to see local government as
part of that framework. I think the Concordat that we have signed
is the first time that there has been an external statement of
principles signed between national government and local government,
and if we had a written constitution then I would want to see
a strong place for that devolutionary settlement but we do not
have that in this country and at the moment I think where we are
is that governments that get elected by the people have the right
to change things in the way the system works.
Q666 Chair: We have a slight interact
with our signing the European Charter of Local Self-Government,
for example, because if you are saying that Parliament has untrammelled
powers, would the signing of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
actually limit Parliament's powers to, should it wish, convert
us into a totally centralised state?
Hazel Blears: I am not going to
get drawn into speculation but the parallel would be the European
Convention on Human Rights. If you want to come out of that the
implication is that you have to come out of the EU. I am not sure
whether coming out of the European Charter of Local Self-Government
would have the same implications and I shall look into it.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed, Secretary
of State.
| 
