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

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

4 The role of central government

89. In this chapter we switch our perspective to look at the factor of central government in the balance of power equation. The benefits that can be gained from an autonomous, empowered, local government could prove liberating for central government. We consider first what form central government intervention in a more decentralised system should take, making the case for minimum national standards. We then compare this theory with current practice, asking whether CLG is on the right lines and whether other government departments need to change. Finally, we assess the role of the permanent civil service, and the extent to which civil service practice is a further, separate inhibiting factor.

The case for minimum standards

90. Nearly all our witnesses accepted that central government had an important role to play in setting nationally acceptable minimum standards. Only Professors George Jones and John Stewart advocated a more radical approach, arguing in their evidence that "the concept of national standards is inherently centralising" and that it "displays the arrogance of centralists who think they know the answers to complex social problems and are justified in imposing their uniform solutions everywhere".[121] Professor George Jones elaborated in his oral evidence to us that his "scepticism about the minimum standards approach" stemmed from the fact that "we do not believe that the centre can really guarantee a minimum unified standard."[122]

91. Abolishing minimum standards would be unacceptable to both the general public—who want reassurance about local government performance and the standards of service delivery they can expect—and to central government—which requires a means of measuring progress against its national strategic goals. In order to gain and maintain public and government support for local variation, individual authorities must be able to show that they are not falling below a minimum acceptable standard. In this respect we note that even in the more devolutionary Swedish model, central legislation establishes minimum standards for a range of social services. Indeed, Swedish citizens have the option of challenging local authorities in court if they feel that they are have not provided them services to the standard specified in the legislation. We heard that the Swedish government has shown itself quite prepared to introduce additional responsibilities—for instance with regard to provision of mental illness—if it decides that local government is failing to address a community need itself. Under such circumstances they are, though, obliged to set aside additional funding commensurate with the additional burden.

92. The importance of minimum standards was acknowledged by a number of witnesses advocating greater localism, including Cllr Richard Kemp, Deputy Chair of the Local Government Association and leader of the Liberal Democratic Group, who argued that "a variation is acceptable providing it is a variation above a minimum which is acceptable. If Liverpool chooses to spend more on this than that, that is a contract between us and our electors."[123] Councillor Merrick Cockell of Westminster City Council and London Councils made a similar point:

I do think that the Government is absolutely more than entitled, has a responsibility to set appropriate minimum standards, whether that is in the care of vulnerable children or in health or whatever it may be, that are right and proper and local authorities should at the minimum deliver to those standards, but above that they should have the flexibility to decide that some areas (indeed, our services are all different and we are doing that generally anyhow) are of greater importance to their local people than other areas and to focus spending priorities on those.[124]

93. The question then arises as to whether central government should intervene if minimum standards are not met. In her evidence, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was quite clear on the role she sees for central government:

Luckily now local [government] in general is performing at a much higher standard than it used to be but there will always be some outliers on specific issues where they are not as good as they might be and I think national government has a responsibility to keep an eye on it, to monitor it and to intervene if that is necessary.[125]

We strongly concur with the sentiments of Councillor Merrick Cockell, who responded to our question about a failing authority by stating that "I think what increasingly we are doing in local government and that is to sort it out ourselves."[126] In particular, Councillor Merrick Cockell referred to the "Capital Ambition" initiative whereby London boroughs work together to assist poorly performing London authorities. He observed that Waltham Forest, "which I think was the fastest mover from zero to four-star", did this partly "with local commitment but also did it with all the other London boroughs"[127] His message that London boroughs have the capability collectively to help themselves, and a track-record to show in evidence that they can do that, is an important one, with wider applicability. Central government should maintain a very high threshold before it intervenes in only the last resort. Too early an intervention blurs local accountability and disincentivises local government from solving its own problems.

Is CLG on the right lines?

94. We have observed in the previous chapter that there is scope within the existing frameworks put in place by the current government to tip the balance towards local government. However, we take issue with CLG's portrayal of the rate of progress to date. Where the Secretary of State sees "quite a radical journey for me. It leaves me slightly breathless […],"[128]we see to date a very cautious, possibly over-cautious, approach to change. For example, far from being particularly radical, the city-region approach contained within the MAA framework has a long pedigree dating at least back to the 1960s and the time of the Radcliffe-Maud Commission. The Government's achievement in bringing performance indicators down to 189 from 1,200 is commendable, but does rather beg the question of who imposed such a high number of performance indicators in the first place. It is also, as suggested by Birmingham City Council, "a mark of how much further there is to go in this direction [reducing central control] that 200 indicators is regarded as a light touch approach".[129]

95. What worries local government in particular is whether the level of central government scrutiny and control is actually going to drop or whether formal targets are simply being replaced by a more informal but no less demanding monitoring system. In evidence to us, Moira Gibb, Chief Executive of Camden Council, asserted that "just since the Audit Commission came to us last December [2007] and reported in May on our score, our top performing children's services has eight different sets of inspectors coming in to do different things."[130] In the same session, Councillor Colin Barrow, Leader of Westminster City Council, informed us that:

we think we have about 45 people doing the Government's bidding in the sense of measuring what the Government has asked […] that costs about £2 million a year […] We would have to measure some of it for our own purposes, but you could imagine that some of it is unimportant to us, it is important only to the Government.[131]

Whilst we accept that CLG Ministers are slowly moving in the right direction, and are genuinely committed to a devolutionary programme, we assess that many of the key challenges—concerning delivery of this devolutionary intent—lie ahead. CLG is not as far down the road as some of its rhetoric might suggest.

Do other government departments need to change?

96. A further issue is the extent to which CLG is taking other government departments with it. If a rebalancing of power is to take place, there has to be consistency and commitment across Whitehall. Local authorities will not be able to exert a leading place-shaping role unless they have influence over the full range of public services delivered at the local level. Individual government departments locked into a top-down mentality are a major, if not insurmountable, obstacle to achieving this. Warwickshire County Council was not alone in expressing concern that "whilst the LAA and partnership working is high on the CLG agenda, we are not so sure that a similar level of importance is attached by other government departments."[132] Similarly, Lancashire County Council, with particular reference to a suggestion from the Department of Children, Schools, and Families that it regularly convene meeting of Lancashire's head teachers ignoring "the logistic and numerical impracticalities involved in such an enterprise", was critical of "the lack of contextual awareness by national decision makers that complicates policy development and implementation".[133] Chris Leslie, Director of NGLN, explained to us what was at stake:

I think it is quite important to reassert the virtue of multifunctional local democracy, the fact that if we are, for instance, going down the route of comprehensive area assessment, with the place shaping mentality [...] that did see this concept of locally accountable political leaders shaping all the services in their area, then it is important that there is consistency between them […] because, as we know, and we can see this certainly at Whitehall level, getting joined-up government is an exceptionally difficult thing to achieve.[134]

97. The seminar we jointly organised with the Institute for Public Policy Research North in November 2008, to which we invited a number of local government stakeholders, also highlighted concerns about the role of other government departments. As we have seen in the previous chapter, contributors felt that both the police and primary care trusts worked primarily to national objectives. They also considered the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Transport to be unresponsive to local priorities. It was also felt that central government did not always share enough information with local government: for instance local government needed more information with regard to extremism in their communities if they were properly to address it.

98. We fully recognise the risk of building up a caricature of Whitehall, which has made a number of steps towards a more partnership-based approach in recent years. Equally, though, it is important to acknowledge the criticism coming from out of the local government community, which suggests that there is still work to do done. Nor is it just a matter for central government departments.

99. Particular criticism is also levied at government agencies. Councillor Jill Shortland, leader of Somerset Council, for example, told us that "a second barrier", after lack of central department co-ordination, stopping her from delivering her place shaping vision was

all the other agencies that work around my area […] We have lots and lots of different government agencies that we have to work with but they have no duty to cooperate with us. They are only answerable to an individual minister […] how do I improve things in my area if they have no duty to cooperate with me?[135]

Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council, made a similar point, telling us that "I do not think our ability to hold those agencies to account is strong enough, nor is our ability to effectively change the delivery method strong enough either".[136] He explicitly made the point that currently he did "not have sufficient co-ordinating power to deliver"[137] the place-shaping role defined by Sir Michael Lyons.

100. The centralist attitudes of the Department of Health and Home Office in relation to local health and policing are replicated to a greater or lesser extent across many, if not all, other government departments and their agencies. At present, in a number of key local service areas, they are acting to constrain local government influence. The challenge for central government departments and agencies is fully to recognise the legitimacy of local authorities' leadership role in their localities, and better to accommodate local authorities into the decision-making process. They need to embrace a cultural change that allows greater autonomy for local government. In principle, we believe that central government departments and agencies should work with CLG to devolve greater local decision-making powers, with the necessary resources, across a much wider range of public policy than has hitherto been the case, to all local authorities. As a first step, we recommend that they devolve such powers to high-performing local authorities.

Does the civil service need to change?

101. A number of witnesses suggested to us that a centralist civil service mindset was a key obstacle to rebalancing power in favour of local government. Professor George Jones commented that:

Increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that the fault for much of the centralisation […] lies with the Civil Service […] it is civil servants who are involved in drawing up this legislation; it is civil servants who put in all the details and the over-prescription […] they of course feel that they are superior to local government officials; they think they are more competent but in fact I doubt that because the local government officials are there on the ground close to where the problems are happening, close to the people.[138]

Professor John Stewart argued further that "I believe that anybody who has any dealings with local government should have some experience of working in it."[139] This observation was supported by other witnesses, such as Baroness Hamwee.[140] Lancashire County Council made a similar point in its written evidence, decrying "London-centric" policy making, and recommending that "civil servants go beyond the south east to experience local policy in action".[141]

102. By contrast, former and current government Ministers asserted that much had already changed in this area. Nick Raynsford MP reckoned that:

in the course of the period that I was in government we brought in some very, very senior civil servants. The civil servant who headed the department dealing with local government matters in what is now CLG […] came from the LGA, where he had been working for the previous seven or eight years on secondment. We brought in others directly from local government; it was a deliberate policy.[142]

Similarly, the Secretary of State told us that "I think many of us have now tried to get secondments, exchanges, have tried to get some of our civil servants working in local government and in local delivery organisations, and I think there is a much better understanding of what local government can do."[143]

103. There are encouraging signs that the Government is prepared to take this process further. The Minister for Local Government, writing on the website Civil Service Network in March 2009, observed that "towards the end of last year, I kicked off a debate about the benefits of getting more civil servants out of their departments and into the frontline", noted that "my suggestion seems to have tapped into a mood of sorts" and affirmed "I want to push the subject further". In particular, he proposed that "we need to make a long spell outside Whitehall—at least 18 months—a requirement for anyone who wants to enter the senior civil service" and that "at the same time we would implement a "one in, one out" policy, meaning that every civil servant that CLG sent to a local authority would be replaced with a seconded local government officer."[144]

104. Avowed Ministerial intent is for a more partnership-based approach to relations with local authorities. However, as we noted in the previous chapter with regard to the Local Area Agreement (LAAs) process, during detailed negotiations with local authorities some central departments have continued to seek to impose top-down direction. We assess that further and more thorough cultural change within Whitehall is still required. Ultimately, Ministers set the overall tone of a department, and a cultural change in the civil service is dependent upon a cultural change at the top of the department. We are therefore encouraged by the mood-music from CLG's senior Ministers, and look forward to seeing progress replicated among senior Ministers in other departments. Meanwhile, we acknowledge the increasing efforts being made to cross-fertilise between local and central government at official level, and recommend that these efforts be expanded. We look forward, in particular, to receiving reports of the progress within CLG of the Minister for Local Government's 'back to the coalface' initiative. Further, we recommend that CLG or the Cabinet Office monitor and publish other government departments' efforts in this regard, to ensure that they are following CLG's example. The new partnership working of the LAA process, upon which much of the success of local government's place-shaping mission depends, will only work if both local government and central government officials appreciate that their roles have changed, and that they are engaging in a dialogue of equals.

121 Ev 135 Back

122 Q 419 Back

123 Q 543 Back

124 Q 266 Back

125 Q 642 Back

126 Q 267 Back

127 Q 268 Back

128 Q 584 Back

129 Ev 124 Back

130 Q 229 Back

131 Qq 230-231 Back

132 Ev 158 Back