8 Conclusion
143. England has, in recent decades, devoted
much time to consideration of its central-local government relationship,
with little practical impact. The continuing stream of official
reviews, inquiries, consultative documents and white papers implies
there is a serious problem. The large amount of evidence that
we have taken in the course of our inquiry suggests that a solution
remains some way off.
144. All major political parties, when in opposition,
promise that when they get to power there will be a shift of power
away from the centre. Once in government, they have proved unable
or unwilling to deliver the decentralisation they have promised.
Within the last 30 years, the non-domestic rate has been nationalised,
post-school education transferred to national funding councils
(though the Government has introduced legislation to move responsibility
for funding 16-18 year old education and training back to local
authorities[193]),
schools funding ring-fenced and council tax capping made, in effect,
permanent. The parties of government have, over time, moved in
the same direction with none choosing significantly to reverse
decisions to accrue power to the centre. Whilst this Government
has taken steps to redress the balance, its record is mixed. There
remains a sizeable gap between the newly empowered local government
that the Government believes it has established in principle,
and the actual impact as witnessed at the local level.
145. The weight of opinion in evidence to this
inquiry supports an enhancement of local government power with
a corresponding reduction in the power of the centre. It would
not be easy to make a significant shift of power from the centre
to local government. But the powerful rationale for change is
twofold. First, a more powerful and autonomous local government
would have the potential to pursue innovative and specifically
local policies that could benefit local people and communities.
Second, such a move could strengthen local democracy and, through
this the democratic process in England as a whole.
146. Having examined all the evidence, we have
concluded that there needs to be a substantial change in the balance
of power between central and local government. The power to govern
in England remains too heavily centralised to be efficient or
effective. Put simply, the balance of power between central and
local government in England is currently in need of a tilt towards
localities.
147. We accept it would not be easy to make a
significant shift of power from the centre to local government.
History is a powerful guide of contemporary practice and there
is no doubt people in Britain have become used to 'the government'
taking the blame for anything that goes wrong. Herein lies a
clue, though, that a successful decentralisation of power might
make the business of central government easier and more likely
to deliver successful outcomes.
148. The public has complex expectations. While
people may opt for 'more local autonomy' when asked by an opinion
pollster, the same individuals may also want the government to
guarantee that 'postcode lotteries' are kept to a minimum or,
better still, eradicated. Expectations of equal treatment by
public services appear to be particularly strong in Britain, creating
demands for central intervention in services more appropriately
provided locally. Such pressures cannot be solely the fault of
the present Government or Opposition. They have evolved over
many years and would take some time to change. Evidence received
during our inquiry, however, indicates that greater engagement
with the public on the part both of local and national politicians,
explaining the advantages of allowing local government greater
scope for innovation as long as the local community is consulted
and can hold it to account, can change public attitudes.
149. Not only should there be a shift in the
balance of power, it should be given a degree of permanency.
To achieve this will require changes not only to the balance of
funding in England, but also to the constitutional settlement
and to Parliamentary scrutiny. Only by so consolidating a new
balance of power between local and central government will local
government achieve the autonomy it requires to deliver the benefits
of local solutions to local people and local communities. In
so doing, we believe, the groundwork will also be laid for a
reinvigorated local democracy that will, in time, also help to
regenerate the national political arena. As our witnesses have
noted, the central-local relationship is not a zero-sum game.
Central and local can gain from this process. We are under no
illusions: as we have seen, the history of reports such as these
is not encouraging. But perhaps now is the time for the moment
to be seized. Building on the small shifts of recent years, central
government should now be more radical, and local government more
ambitious for itself and the people of its locality. The benefits
both to local public services and to democracy itself could be
immeasurable.
193 Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning
Bill. Back
|
