|
The balance of power between central and local government matters. It matters because improving the lives of local people and local communities matters, and because where the balance of power between central and local government lies, there lies the responsibility and accountability for the delivery of those improvements.
Even more fundamentally, it matters because the strength of Britain's famously unwritten constitution depends upon a strong democracy, and a strong democracy requires two important elements; popular participation at the local level; and popular participation at the national level. The two are interconnected. If popular participation at the grass roots continues to decline in this country, then the national body politic will not be immune from the consequences. Flourishing grass roots are only likely where local people understand what local government is responsible for in terms of both policy and resources, where they can hold to account local government for its performance, and where, crucially, they believe that local government can make a real difference.
Whilst we acknowledge the need for central government to set and monitor national strategic goals, local government must have its own autonomy. Local authorities should have the freedom to shape the development of their communities and the scope to unlock the full potential of local innovation. Our report considers how far away we are at present from such an equitable balance of power arrangement in England, and the scope for further adjustment.
We note the lesson from English history that, whilst the balance of power has been subject to pendulum swings, the predominant trend, particularly since the second world war, has been for central government to increase its powers and responsibilities at the expense of local government. Whilst welcoming the changes that this Government has made to allow local government greater space in which to act, we question whether enough has been done to counterbalance these historic centralising tendencies.
Acknowledging how difficult it has been for governments of whatever hue to swing the pendulum back in the opposite direction, we assess why this is the case—highlighting in particular the extent to which the political culture in England, encouraged by public opinion and the media, traditionally looks to the centre to take the initiative on a range of domestic policy issues, and blames the centre when things go badly wrong in the localities.
Our report looks at the current role of local government, assessing where it could be more proactive in making best use of existing structures, and where change is required elsewhere—by central government and its agencies and by Parliament—to increase the scope for autonomous local government activity.
This leads us to consider the role of central government, and the advantages to be gained at both the local and the national levels from adopting a "minimalist" as opposed to a "maximalist" role in relation to local government. We advocate further cultural change within central government to facilitate a lasting pendulum swing towards a more decentralised balance of power structure, stressing the need for consistency across Whitehall, and the extent to which this is yet to be achieved.
We also focus on the other key challenge for central government in this area, the pressing need for reform of local government financial arrangements. Whilst acknowledging the extent to which this issue remains complex and politically intractable, we articulate some key principles and propose some options that would better align local government finance with a more equitable balance of power, by enabling local government to raise more of its own money.
Finally, we consider the extent to which a new constitutional settlement for local government could create and maintain a new, more appropriate, balance of power. We note the particular challenges posed by the English way of doing things. We believe that the manner in which Parliament debates some essentially local issues can work to constrain local government. Whilst we fully accept that Members of Parliament have an obligation to raise issues that matter in their constituency, it may be that they need to set themselves a higher threshold before raising and debating essentially local matters in the Chamber.
More formally, we believe that the Central-Local Concordat, signed between the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Leader of the Local Government Association, and the European Charter of Local Self-Government, signed by all member states of the Council of Europe, are potentially useful documents that ought to be guiding Government departments' relationships far more obviously than has been the case thus far. We recommend, therefore, a constitutional settlement that puts the European Charter of Local Self-Government on a statutory basis, and requires government departments to confirm on the face of new Bills that new domestic legislation is compatible with the statute.
Finally, we conclude that Parliament should have a greater scrutiny role with regard to the relationship between local and central government, to ensure that government abides by this new constitutional settlement. Accordingly, we recommend that Parliament establish a Joint Committee to monitor compliance with the new statutory arrangements. The Government should adopt a policy of including analysis of compatibility with the statutory principles for local government in the impact assessment which accompanies each domestic bill. This may appear a rather rarefied ending; but we see a direct link between a new status for local government in England, and the potential for enhanced local innovation and variation to improve the lives of local people and local communities.
| 
