Annex: Committee and IPPR North joint
seminar: Balance of Power
Seminar Record
This event, organised jointly by the Committee and
the Institute for Public Policy Research North (IPPR North), gave
an invited audience the opportunity to debate, under Chatham House
rule, the balance of power between central and local government,
and to make a contribution to the Committee's inquiry.
Opening remarks
Panellists, chosen to provide a range of "localist"
and "centralist" views, initiated proceedings by providing
short opening remarks. The following points were made from a
more centralist perspective:
- The key question is how services
can best be provided at moderate cost to the greatest satisfaction
of the public. Localists need to demonstrate that efficiency,
effectiveness and accountability are better locally—where
is the evidence? What problems can be solved by localism? Until
local government can clearly answer the question of what benefit
greater localism would bring, the opportunities for redistribution
of power will be limited.
- Given the extent of the current economic crisis,
there also needs to be an economic reality check. Local councils
simply lack the clout to make a big difference under these circumstances—measures
to enable substantial economic improvement can only be made at
the national level, leaving little space for local government
to build up their own powers.
- Furthermore, there is little public appetite
for a redistribution of power from central to local government.
Contrast with Scotland, where devolution occurred because of the
pressure exerted by a popular movement.
- The public is not satisfied with the current
performance of local public sector service providers, and tends
to look to the national government to intervene to improve things,
rather than local government.
- The national media, which carries more weight
with the public than local publications, encourages this emphasis
on national intervention. In the recent Baby P case, for example,
the tabloids put pressure on national politicians to act to ensure
that councils were delivering acceptable standards of childcare
across England.
- Both the public and media are sceptical that
local councils have the capacity to run professional local services,
and are unwilling to accept much diversity in service delivery.
Other panellists countered these arguments from a
more decentralising perspective:
- In the nineteenth century powerful,
autonomous local governments led the way in poverty relief, urban
regeneration and education. Whilst it is not possible to return
to this model, it is still possible for local government to exert
a stronger leadership role within partnerships.
- The question is the extent to which local authorities
are allowed to lead local partnerships, as opposed to being subject
to central regulation and oversight. Over time, central governments
have eroded the ability of local governments to lead at the local
level—local government has been over-directed and over-regulated
in the last 30 years. There needs to be a shift in the balance
of power to allow local government greater opportunity to lead.
- Local government should be government locally,
rather than solely an agency for the delivery of local services.
Only by harnessing local capacity is it possible to address local
problems appropriately. In particular, public engagement is crucial
if local problems are to be resolved satisfactorily. Local government
is better placed than national government or quangos to increase
public engagement. In opinion polls, around 2 in 10 citizens
believe they can influence the national government, whilst 4 in
10 (still low, but significantly better) believe they can influence
local government.
- Local government can make a difference. The local
government role is, for example, actually very important in a
recession because detailed local knowledge is essential in order
to address areas of greatest hardship. It is also possible to
increase its capacity to make a difference, for instance by giving
local authorities the power to vary the business rate.
- A successful rebalancing of power would require
changes both in how national government behaves, and in how local
government behaves. It would also require a shift in public perceptions
which is possibly the biggest obstacle—currently the public
demands that national politicians intervene on problematic local
issues. The buck is seen to stop with Ministers, who seek to
control what they might be blamed for. A directly-elected Mayoral
system might assist here—giving a clear focal point of local
accountability.
- Some progress has already been made—through
Local Area Agreements (LAAs), Multi Area Agreements (MAAs) and
Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs). The challenge is to build
on this, and address the weaknesses in the current system—such
as continued government reluctance to trust local government (e.g.
the Policing Green Paper which opts to by-pass local government)
divisions between Whitehall departments, the number of national
targets, and public concerns about a "post code lottery".
- The issue of equity or "post code lottery",
where different outcomes are perceived to increase inequality,
is a particularly difficult issue for Labour administrations placing
an emphasis on equity, even though the central state has also
proved unable to deliver identical outcomes. But this matters
more where a policy is perceived to be national, meaning consistent
outcomes and ways of working are expected. It is less of an issue
where people are clear that the policy is owned locally. There
needs therefore to be greater transparency over who is responsible
for what and, crucially, with regard to funding flows.
- Also important to stress that tax and benefit
rather than public services are the best levers for a national
government wishing to reduce inequalities.
Debate from the Floor
Discussion was then opened up to the floor. Unsurprisingly
perhaps, given that most attendees were drawn from local government
or from organisations sympathetic to the "localist"
case, the majority of interventions were in favour of greater
local autonomy.
A number of attendees commented on the political
culture in England:
- England has a very nationalised
political culture where problematic local issues move swiftly
to the national arena. The relative weakness of local democracy
could become a problem nationally as well, as a lack of engagement
at the local level could spread.
- Pressure groups also help to promote a nationalised
political culture, because they prefer to have one set of people
to lobby.
- There is a gap between central government's "localist"
language and actual practice. For example much of the power to
influence the local area currently lies with unaccountable quangos.
At the very least the quango decision making process should be
made more transparent—by having meetings in public. This
might also enable local rather than national issues to come to
the fore.
- There is a need for a constitutional settlement
to prevent central government from taking back or removing further
powers from local government.
There was also a lively debate on the attitude of
citizens to local government:
- Some speakers took issue with
the suggestion that there was little public appetite for devolution,
arguing that people did want a transfer of power, although they
may not put it in the language of devolution and localism. Many
were informed about particular local issues, but were frustrated
because local government was not able to deliver what they wanted.
For example, they were aware that the power to run bus services
had been taken away from councils. The challenge for localists
is to show how a shift in the balance of power would increase
the ability of the local council to address the specific issues
of concern to the public.
- It was suggested that there was an unhelpful
gap between MPs and local councillors, with the former not knowing
much about local government. This was challenged, on the basis
that local MPs were made very aware of local issues by their constituents,
and indeed were frequently asked to intervene in areas—notably
housing and education—where poor local council delivery
was undermining the community. Where the local council was dominated
by one party, the local MP could at times take on the role of
local opposition.
- There was agreement that it was not always possible
for the public to judge who had responsibility for what.
There was equally lively debate on the extent to
which current government policies were along the right lines:
- One speaker noted that there
was much greater scope for local initiative elsewhere—for
instance in the Nordic countries it is local authorities who set
the political agenda.
- Another observed that some remaining centralisation
was important. Central inspections had helped to improve the
performance of local government, and there remained a need for
basic checking.
- By contrast, another expressed concern at the
extent to which central government regulation was stifling local
innovation in services. Social workers for instance were very
constrained by central directive—a new information system
imposed by the centre had proved particularly time-consuming and
unmanageable. There is a need to link social workers more closely
with education and health, and this could best be done by giving
local councils greater flexibility to join up the budgets of different
services.
- Others questioned whether the forthcoming Comprehensive
Area Agreement (CAA) inspection regime would deliver a 'lighter
touch'. There were concerns about whether the different inspectorates
would align as intended, and whether the approach would in practice
continue to stifle local initiative.
- Others felt that if local government was to take
on a 'place-shaping' role, it would need greater influence over
neighbourhood policing and PCTs. It was felt that both the police
and PCTs worked primarily to national objectives, and DWP and
DfT were also criticised for being unresponsive to local issues.
Notwithstanding the government's empowerment agenda, there were
a number of areas where local authorities—a key empowerment
enabler given their representative role—were not involved
or not sufficiently involved in local delivery.
- It was also felt that central government needed
to share more information with local government. Local government
needed more information—for example with regard to extremism
in their communities—if they were properly to direct and
fund local services.
- With regard to central policy making, the observation
was made that central government needed to consult more with local
government at an early stage. The proposal was made that civil
servants should have more experience of local government—possibly
through the introduction of one recruitment scheme for local and
central officials.
Priorities for the Committee
Before wrapping up the meeting, the Chair asked participants
to advise the Committee on what they felt the Committee's priorities
should be when it came to writing its final report. From a centrist
viewpoint:
- the Committee was urged to
focus on the current recession. The key question was the capacity
of local government to produce efficiency savings.
- The Committee was also advised to consider what
would resonate with the public. For change to occur, the public
would have to embrace the opportunity to register their aspirations
with local government. The tools for greater local involvement
were already there, but it was possible to be sceptical as to
whether the public would use them.
Most interventions, though, urged the Committee to
put forward the case for increased local autonomy, albeit with
differing emphases:
- The Committee was urged to
take a holistic, systemic approach—focusing on all levels
of government. Politics is a seamless web and if local democracy
is undermined, this will eventually impact upon Parliament. The
bottom line was that everyone's attitudes needed to change.
- The Committee was advised to focus on why some
local authorities felt sufficiently powerful to be innovative,
whilst others did not. The challenge was to make more councils
feel powerful.
- It was also suggested that the Committee should
consider the funding system for local government. One observation
was that local governments could hide behind the current funding
system. They would be less able to do this if they were able
to raise a greater proportion of their budget and if there was
less ring fencing.
- It was also proposed that the Committee focus
on increasing accountability at the local level. It was suggested
that directly elected Mayors were the key to greater local accountability,
and to re-focusing attention on local issues. There was a need
for more boldness in local government, and Mayors could drive
this. Mayors could also reassure Ministers that there was someone
in charge, enabling them to back off and to empower further local
government.
- A counter argument though was that clear leadership
and accountability at the local level was quite achievable without
the introduction of Mayors. Local government had produced strong
recognisable local leaders in the early 80s (e.g. Ken Livingstone
whilst leader of the Greater London Council).
- The Committee was also urged to look critically
at regional quangos. How effective are they at understanding
and resolving local issues? It was suggested that any powers and
functions being devolved by central government should go to local
government unless a clear case could be made for why not.
- At the national level, the Committee was urged
to recommend increased collaboration—local government should
be invited to help shape consultation papers.
At the end of the seminar Dr Phyllis Starkey, Chair
of the Committee, thanked attendees for a stimulating debate which
had provided much for the Committee—a number of whom had
been present and had contributed to the debate—to consider.
She thanked IPPR North for helping to organise the seminar, and
for chairing it.
|
