Memorandum from the National Organisation of Residents Associations (BOP 49)

 

 

Introduction

 

Over the last thirty years or so there has been a steady erosion of the power in the hands of local authority as more and more power has been assumed by central government. It was initially based on the need to control expenditure so that the proportion of the Gross Domestic Product spent at local level could be controlled. This was justified by the belief that local authorities might be profligate with the assumption that central government would be prudent, now perceived to be erroneous. This control was exerted initially by reducing the proportion of the annual central government grant to local authority budgets. But this was not a sufficient mechanism, since some local authorities just raised their own rates to meet the needs of their local areas, so the next step was to impose limits on annual increases under the title of capping.

 

The overall effect of these central government controls was to place a barrier of lack of trust between local and central government. Councillors, wanting to improve their own areas and to add services they considered necessary to meet the demands of their electorate, were disenchanted. This had led to a steady decline in the calibre of local councillors, and in many parts of the country it is difficult to attract high calibre candidates. Whereas in the past retail traders, professional people and entrepreneurs were keen to become local councillors, they are rare phenomena now.

 

Financial controls were the initial step in alienating the public. Then came an avalanche of legislation affecting local authority policies. This covered key matters of strictly local importance such as housing, planning, licensing, highways funding, refuse collection, etc., in which the power of decision over local matters was assumed by central government and local authorities were firmly obliged to obey central diktats. Each year the diktats increased, and all too often no extra funding was provided to pay for the proposals that consequently ate into fixed local budgets.

 

This sequence of events continues inexorably and accounts for much of the disillusionment in the democratic process felt by the electorate, the councillors they elect and the officers employed in local government.

 

 

Power of Decisions

 

· What makes democracy a successful institution?

1.1 Democracy is government for the people by the people and by their elected representatives, who are elected by the people all with equal rights. It has been violated by elected representatives, who exceed their mandate, in almost every so-called democratic state since time immemorial, and our present elected representatives are no angels in this respect. Democracy is only regarded as successful when the people can replace those they elected with others they prefer. Sadly political party power often subverts this principle.

1.2 Democracy is a successful institution only because no better system offers such political freedom and provided the people continue to have confidence in their ability to procure change and influence decisions that affect their lives.

 

· Which powers merit delegation for local decisions?

2.1 People know their locality better than central authorities. Accordingly matters, that are primarily local, merit delegation for local decisions.

2.2 This comprises planning, housing, refuse collection, public convenience provision, licensing of premises, traffic management, local transport services, primary and secondary education, library and museum services, and health and social services. They may require to be obliged to meet minimum national standards, but the power to make the definitive decisions should be local.

· Which powers need central decisions?

Matters that have more than a local significance obviously transcend local interests. That means they could be regional rather than central, but such regional authorities need to have a strong element of elected representatives of their constituent authorities and not be over-run by vested interests either of larger authorities or by entrepreneurs.

Regional authorities should have the power over police and fire authorities and major planning issues.

This leaves central decisions to apply to the armed forces, national networks such as power supplies, national transport services, tertiary education, prison service and legal services among other facilities.

 

· Which elements of financial control can be delegated locally?

4.1 The problem of how funds are allocated has been crucial. If local taxation is to be supported by a major grant of nearly two thirds of the budget, this sum needs to be arbitrarily fixed and not be varied by government decree. The funding needs to be fixed for the duration of any particular government so that the electorate helps to make that decision. In turn this means that locally collected taxes are controlled in effect by the electorate.

4.2 Accordingly local authorities should be allowed to seek outside funding when the local electorate has voted for schemes that require it. Treasury control should be removed in the interest of local democracy.

 

· Which elements of finance need central control?

5.1 The costs of the services managed by central government are clearly the responsibility solely of central government.

5.2 Interference in local authority funding would constitute interference in local democracy.

 

· Which services merit local control?

6.1 Paragraph 3.1 covers this.

 

· Which services demand central control?

7.1 Paragraph 3.2 covers this.

 

· What deters citizens from becoming councillors?

8.1 When the power of decision is reduced so much that local affairs of significance are taken by central government, citizens of discernment are not interested in becoming councillors. The time and effort involved in elections followed by hours of sitting in committees to little effect will not attract citizens of the right calibre.

8.2 The imposition of government policies that conflict directly with local democratic wishes is a strong disincentive. A good example of this is the imposition of Unitary Authorities against the wishes of the local electorate. It removes a whole layer of democratic government and concentrates what little power has been left to local government even more remotely from the electorate. As an unintended consequence this reduction in democratic involvement acts as a strong deterrent for socially minded responsible citizens to putting their names forward for election to Parish and Town Councils instead of District and Borough Councils, when they realise their power of decision is restricted to relatively minor matters such as street lighting and refuse collection rather than, for example, planning and licensing matters.

8.3 When central government decisions on key issues, for example number of dwellings in an area, are in direct conflict with the wishes of the local electorate, what incentive is there for anyone to take part in what amounts to a remote and authoritarian government?

 

September 2008