Written evidence submitted by Andrea Hill,
Chief Executive,
Suffolk County Council (L&GC 06)
In Suffolk we have spent some time and considerable
energy in developing a collaborative way of working with our public
sector partners. We believe that only by working together across
the whole public sector in Suffolk can we meet the twin challenges
of improving outcomes for our residents, the communities they
live in and businesses in Suffolk, with a reduced financial settlement.
We have had some successes: for example by working
in a different way with health and police to support families
with complex needs in Ipswich, and improving closer working between
GPs and social workers in Southwold to better support older people
and reduce hospital admissions/entries into residential care.
However we often come up against barriers to collaboration which
are, at least in part, created by the nature of the relationship
between local and central government.
Local government, despite its democratic mandate,
is in many respects a weaker partner in relation to other public
services, especially health and police. This means we are unable
to bring to the table fully some of our partners who look to central
government for their direction. So even when it is in the local
interest and backed by a local democratic mandate, often we have
found that partners are unable to act with us due to the constraints
imposed by Whitehall departments or deprioritise action to achieve
local priorities in favour of national priorities.
This reduction in the stature of local government
in relation to Whitehall, and therefore its practical impact on
other partners locally, has happened over a very long period of
time. It is as much, if not more, a political and cultural effect
as structural. I have a great deal of sympathy with Professor
Vernon Bogdanor's comments to this effect. However, I do believe
that if codification could assist in the restoration of
local government as a more equal partner to central government,
then codification would be attractive. To do so, codification
would need to be more radical than either the Central-Local Concordat,
and the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
Community budgets, which pool funding and enable
decisions about funding to be made collaboratively across the
public sector, both support a stronger voice for local government,
and requires a more equal relationship between all partners.
We look forward to the General Power of Competence
and the introduction of the Health and Wellbeing Boards, the transfer
of public health to local authorities and the changes to the way
in which health is commissioned locally. All of these, we believe,
will have a positive effect on the capacity of local government
to deliver its mandate in relation to supporting and developing
the local economy and working collaboratively with partners to
improve outcomes for residents. However, we are conscious that
much uncertainty remains over how these reforms will be delivered,
and therefore what real effect they will have.
The remainder of this document deals with the specific
questions you raise.
Should the relationship between central and local
government be codified? Should codification be considered in the
context of wider constitutional codification?
In addition to the points raised in the opening statement,
from a local government perspective it is difficult to determine
the extent to which codification would serve a positive purpose
without knowing the detail of it, particularly as codification
does not automatically endow legal status. Nevertheless, if any
such code did have its basis in law, on the one hand, it could:
- Provide a clear operating framework and clarify
powers and responsibilities that may otherwise be open to interpretation
or challenge, such as the Wellbeing Power.
- Particularly if based on the principle of outcomes,
help equalize a currently unequal central/local relationship and
serve to strengthen local government's independence vis-à-vis
central government and therefore the delivery partners of central
government, such as health.
- Protect local government from unwarranted prescription
and micro-management, and allow it greater flexibility in pursuit
of local and shared objectives.
On the other hand, there is a risk that codification
would:
- Create an artificial framework that perpetuates
the restrictions of a one size fits all approach.
- Be unable to quickly and easily adapt to changing
circumstances.
- Inhibit the ability of local government to work
in the best interests of the people it serves.
- Unwittingly create new barriers to the delivery
of national objectives through local authorities.
If codification is appropriate, what degree of
independence and what powers should local government be given?
If codification is appropriate, it should be undertaken
in the spirit of localism and devolution, and should serve to
strengthen local government's independence. It should be based
on a small number of principles and the delivery of outcomes,
although it may also usefully serve to clarify specific powers
and duties.
How, if at all, should the status of local government
be entrenched, or protected from change by central government?
It would be a retrograde step if codification were
to entrench local government to the extent that it was insulated
from all change. Codification and the ability to amend the code
will require a delicate balancing act to be struck between the
right of central government to act in the national interest and
to require other tiers of government to do likewise, and the right
of local government to act in the local interest.
What consequences should codification or other
changes in the relationship between central and local government
have on the accountability of local authorities to elected local
politicians, local people and central government?
In the context of current policy and (as referred
to above) a more equal central/local relationship, codification
should serve to strengthen the accountability of local authorities
to local people. It is, after all, from these people that local
authorities derive their mandate to pursue particular policies.
Furthermore, in light of greater financial freedoms, local authorities
will have more scope to spend public money in the pursuit of local
priorities and should fundamentally be held to account for this
by local people.
Does the devolution settlement provide a relevant
model for possible codification of the status of local government?
In some respects there isn't a great deal of difference
between the devolution settlements and the current central/local
relationship: Scotland and Wales have the powers the government
wants them to have and the government still holds the purse-strings
through a formula-based grant. On the other hand, there might
be some attraction for local government in having devolved powers
and responsibilities set down in a single Act of Parliament, as
for Scotland, particularly if it granted them freedom to exercise
those powers in whatever way they see fit.
What is the value of existing attempts to codify
the relationship between central and local government, through
the Central-Local Concordat, and the European Charter of Local
Self-Government? Should the latter be placed on a statutory footing?
Neither of these has any basis in law and as such
they have very little value except as declarations of intent.
I cannot see the point in placing the European Charter on a statutory
footing as it sets its principles (no matter how laudable) in
the context of national statute/constitutions anyway. In any event,
given the discussion in the opening paragraphs above, these have
not sought to or succeeded in rectifying the balance of the relationship
between central and local government.
How would the proposed general power of competence
for local authorities affect the constitutional relationship between
central and local government?
Depending on how it is framed, the Power has the
potential to help equalize the relationship between central and
local government. However, as happened with the Wellbeing Power,
it is likely that use of the proposed new Power will be challenged
and shaped by legal judgement. This could serve to render the
power less potent than intended. Also, it remains a fact that
the Power will still be constrained by the provisions of other
legislation, so it will not be a panacea to current legal barriers.
3 December 20100
| 
