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


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.





 
previous page contents

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 20 May 2009