3 Central government in a localist
system
Will Government prove able to
rein itself in?
49. For a localist ethos to take root, central government—both
Ministers and civil servants—must voluntarily refrain from
intervention in issues that are properly the purview of local
agencies.[80] Professors
George Jones and John Stewart among others were sceptical about
the sustainability of such a 'hands off' mentality in Whitehall:
Past experience shows it is easier to announce
a policy of decentralisation than to ensure it happens. The reasons
lie in the working of central government departments. Even when
the initial policy is accompanied by measures of decentralisation
it is not long before the operations of departments reassert the
dominant centralist approach. Michael Heseltine, when Secretary
of State for the Environment (1979-83) held 'a bonfire' of 300
controls. Over time new central controls more than replaced the
number abolished.[81]
Professors Jones and Stewart went on to diagnose
some of the tendencies that can make Whitehall resistant to localism:
each department's own policies being prioritised above a general
policy of decentralisation, lack of confidence in local government
on the part of "an elitist civil service", failure to
consider the cumulative effect of all Government decisions on
local authorities, and the privileging of accountability to the
department rather than to local electorates. Baroness Eaton, Chair
of the Local Government Association, evinced a certain suspicion
of the civil service mindset, even when answering to Ministers
who are avowed localists: "Sometimes we wonder whether the
advice is perhaps as flexible as ministerial thinking".[82]
50. Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP and Rt Hon Nick Herbert
MP, respectively Minister for Employment and Minister for Policing,
told us that they had not encountered any cultural resistance
from their officials to the decentralisation agenda, although
the latter admitted it could be challenging for the Home Office
to identify areas in which power could be exercised other than
by the Department.[83]
Mr Herbert commented that old habits die hard, even outside the
ranks of the civil service: "We often find that the police
service asks Ministers to intervene and do things and prescribe
because that is the world they are used to".[84]
Secretary of State Eric Pickles told us in September 2010 that
cultural change in DCLG was a work in progress: "I think
our officials are in a different place in terms of decentralisation
than when I and my colleagues first arrived. There is no criticism
meant there at all, but to push power down does mean that you
yourself are going to lose influence."[85]
51. For Ministers, as well as the temptation to retain
levers of influence, there can be powerful political counterweights
to decentralisation.[86]
Think tank IPPR North argued that
Perhaps the most important barrier to localism
in Britain is a political culture which tends to hold Ministers
responsible for all actions of 'the government' most broadly conceived.
Local problems often result in the desire to 'hang the Minister'.
The most obvious example of this is in the health service where
the Secretary of State is expected to answer for every hospital
infection or dirty ward. The reasons for this are complex. In
part this is because the doctrine of ministerial responsibility
is deeply ingrained in the national psyche; it is partly because
central government fails to exercise restraint, and wades into
arguments and it is partly because it is not obvious who is to
blame if it is not the Minister, and the lines of accountability
are too opaque.[87]
Oxfordshire County Council posed the question:
What will any Minister do when a journalist calls
him about a spending decision made at a local government level
and which the journalist brands as evidence of a postcode lottery?
If the Minister reaches for a telephone to instruct the local
council to conform to a national template, localism is lost.[88]
Parliament, too, is culpable. MPs and Opposition
spokespeople frequently ask Ministers to answer for issues that
are strictly operational or local in scope.[89]
This can set a tone for debate within which recourse to localism
becomes politically very difficult. Our predecessors concluded
in their report on the balance of power between central and local
government that MPs should set themselves a higher threshold before
raising and debating essentially local matters on the floor of
the House.[90]
52. Thus far, despite its localist rhetoric, this
Government has not escaped criticism for a tendency to interfere
in local matters, particularly in the way councils are run.[91]
The performance of waste collection services in wintry weather,
the salaries awarded to senior officers, and the fate of a house
in which Ringo Starr once lived are all matters on which DCLG
Ministers have sought to exercise influence or make known their
disapproval.[92] Cllr
Steve Reed deprecated the ministerial habit of "knee-jerk
making of pronouncements on TV", complaining that
it makes no sense to say you want localism, and
then for the Secretary of State for Communities to say you must
stick with the weekly waste collection, for instance. What if
[...] a particular community would rather have fortnightly waste
collection in order to spend some of that money on some other
service that is more important to them? That might be youth services;
it might be filling in potholes because the roads are substandard.
Why is the Secretary of State telling that community they can't
do it, if they want to do it?[93]
53. The Local Government Association has drawn attention
to the number of points within the Localism Bill at which powers
are reserved to the Secretary of State, arguing that this is contradictory
in a piece of legislation which is supposed to be about divesting
central government of power.[94]
By the LGA's count, there are 142 such instances in the Bill.[95]
Baroness Eaton commented:
Some of the things that are coming up from those
are, for example, around the referendums. The Secretary of State
has the ability to decide what is localist—what is a local
issue. That is the top telling local people what are the important
local issues. To me, that seems a very inconsistent and unnecessary
potential order within the Minister's gift. [...] A lot of the
things referred to are very, very local, like community assets.
The Secretary of State decides what is an asset of community value.
I would have thought that the people in my ward are more likely
to know what is a valuable asset to the community than the Secretary
of State.[96]
54. In a previous report, we criticised changes to
the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity
on the grounds that they run counter to the principles of localism
by prescribing how local authorities conduct their own business.[97]
The Minister for Housing and Local Government, Rt Hon Grant Shapps
MP, disagreed that issuing such a Code was an anomalous move for
a Government so committed to decentralisation:
perhaps most people misunderstand what is meant
by localism. It does not mean, for example, that Government simply
ignores what is going on and turns a blind eye to reality on the
ground; it actually means that the Government puts in place a
framework to make sure that localism can flourish.[98]
Exactly where the dividing line is between 'putting
in place a framework' and unwarranted interference has not been
explicitly defined; it appears at the moment simply to be a product
of the objectives the Government wishes to achieve. Suspicion
is thereby fuelled that the Government will continue to intervene
when councils and other local bodies exercise new or existing
freedoms to act in a way that excites its disapproval.[99]
There is a trade-off between populism and localism.
55. One example is the debate about how local authorities
should use funds that were formerly ring-fenced but have now been
rolled into the general Area-Based Grant. These include Supporting
People grants for housing-related support for vulnerable adults.
In December 2010, Secretary of State Eric Pickles told us
You will no doubt recall that for the past couple
of years the programme has been ring-fenced, but within the Department's
DEL[100] as opposed
to local government DEL. All we did was simply to take it to its
next logical step and say, 'Well, actually, local government has
ownership of that.' I am aware of some places in the country that
are taking significant cuts in Supporting People—I completely
deprecate that. But most local authorities are protecting the
scheme, not just to help vulnerable people but because it also
makes enormous economic sense. One of the consequences of localism
is that you have to allow local communities to make decisions
about where that spending goes. Most sensible local authorities
will come to the conclusion that £1 spent on Supporting People
will probably save them £5 or £6 further down the line.
[…] It would be a brave local authority that cut Supporting
People, protected the centre and continued to have very large
middle-management costs.[101]
Grant Shapps concurred that "the idea that local
authorities should use Supporting People as their front line for
reductions is completely against everything that we would expect
to see". The Secretary of State concluded: "In short,
while we would not make this a general rule, we are happy to offer
a degree of guided localism".[102]
56. We asked Greg Clark whether there would be a
cultural change within Government so that Ministers would not
continue to castigate local authorities for making the 'wrong'
decisions. He said:
I think it is the right thing to decentralise
and not respond to every situation by taking yet more powers to
the centre. But does that mean you do not have an opinion on things
and you regard anything that is ever done as being for the best
in the best of all possible worlds? Clearly not. What the Secretary
of State has said on occasions, whether it is do with bins or
whatever, is to express his view, but you will notice that he
has not taken a power to require weekly bin collections. […]
All of us in public life are elected to give an opinion on things,
especially if we see things that could be done better.[103]
57. Ministers must rein in their interventionist
instincts if the Government's localism agenda is to be credible.
Central government cannot have it both ways—on the one hand
giving local authorities the freedom to make their own choices,
and on the other maintaining that only one of those choices is
the 'sensible' one. The Government must make its own choice: does
it wish local authorities to exercise local discretion, or does
it want to continue to prescribe and recommend courses of action
centrally? The litmus test of localism will be the Government's
reaction to local decisions with which it disagrees. The concept
of 'guided localism' is an unhappy compromise which is neither
helpful to local authorities nor as radical as the Government
seems content to believe.
58. Ministers are not alone in needing to curb
their appetite for intervention. Changing the cultures of the
civil service and of Parliament to support a more localist system
will be crucial. The former will be decisive in ensuring that
Ministers' intentions are put into practice, and the latter in
altering the parameters of debate to reflect the distribution
of powers to local agencies. Opposition spokesmen, too, bear some
responsibility for ensuring that central government is not tempted
to interfere beyond its proper remit.
Setting limits to localism
59. Although the balance of opinion among our witnesses
was clearly in favour of devolving more power to local level,
a significant minority disagreed with the idea that central government
should retreat entirely from local affairs. Their worry was not
that the Government's interpretation of localism would be too
timid or half-hearted, but that the Government would in fact follow
its intentions to their logical conclusion. A range of organisations
representing the interests of vulnerable, marginalised or minority
groups expressed fears that a decentralised system in which 'bureaucratic
accountability' mechanisms had been dismantled would leave services
for such groups at the mercy of the vagaries of local politics
and funding choices made under the pressure of cuts.
60. It was argued by these groups that sections of
the community that are small in population terms, politically
invisible or unpopular, or that are not geographically concentrated,
lack recourse to the ballot box as an alternative form of accountability.[104]
Examples included gypsies and travellers, sex workers, rough sleepers,
and young people seeking an exit from gang culture.[105]
Distrust of local electoral accountability was expressed most
pointedly by supported housing provider Cosgarne Hall:
Services like ours, which are mainly about providing
support and accommodation for chronic alcoholics and drug addicts,
are seen by many as helping people who do not deserve help. [...]
at election time, the candidate who announced that his policy
was to close hostels for alcoholics and drug addicts, to get rid
of inmates and cut the council tax, might stand a good chance
of dislodging a responsible councillor from his seat in a marginal
ward.[106]
61. Age UK pointed out that, when given the chance
to set their own priorities in the past, for example by selecting
Local Area Agreement indicators, most local authorities have not
chosen to prioritise the needs of older people.[107]
David Congdon of Mencap told us
The concern is that when decisions are taken
at a local level, they are inevitably based on pressures at a
local level. People at a local level—councillors, in particular—know
best what needs to be done in their area, but there is a danger
that minority-group interests can be missed out, although that
does not necessarily have to occur. The generalised example that
I would give is that things that are very visible tend to be […]
the things that will be protected. I probably shouldn't mention
street cleaning in the current climate, with snow all over the
pavements, but things like that are very visible, as are things
like town centre environmental issues. If the eligibility criteria
for social care services to individuals with, say, a learning
disability are cut, and those individuals see their day activity
decline from, say, five days a week to three days a week, the
only people who know about that are the individuals concerned
and their families. That is the danger. A general point would
be that, with increasing localism, there is a need to have mechanisms
in place—a framework for accountability is the sort of thing
we need. It is very hard to define exactly what that should contain,
but we need something to ensure that, as far as possible, what
the Government will through funding—most funding for local
authorities comes from Government—actually gets delivered
at a local level.[108]
62. The current imperative for austerity could leave
vulnerable groups in a precarious position if they are seen as
a soft target, particularly when the relevant services were not
prescribed by a statutory duty.[109]
There was concern, too, that local authorities would choose to
cut services whose overall benefits are felt only on a national
scale or to other service providers, or preventative services
whose benefits are realised only over the long term.[110]
Sitra, a membership organisation for supported housing providers,
argued that
decentralisation has not led to more effective
public service delivery of housing-related support. It is our
contention that those groups of people who are in receipt of non-statutory
services are significantly worse off as these services are being
reduced or cut in order for local authorities to make savings.[111]
Chief Executive Vic Rayner called the removal of
the ringfence around Supporting People funding "a kind of
microcosm of the impact of localism", with bleak ramifications
for the future.[112]
She reasoned that policies could be attuned to local circumstances
without central government washing its hands of responsibility
for what happens locally.[113]
Others expressed the opinion that it is entirely legitimate for
Government to dictate how certain monies are spent in the pursuit
of particular policy goals.[114]
Sense, which represents deaf-blind people, argued that there is
already too much local scope for local variation, with each local
authority being able to set their own threshold for social care
services which substantially affect quality of life.[115]
The Audit Commission noted that the public considers national
levels of quality and cost to be desirable in the case of services
whose users have little or no choice, such as social care.[116]
63. Organisations representing vulnerable or minority
groups, therefore, commonly argued that a degree of continuing
centralised control and prescription was essential.[117]
The removal of the Comprehensive Area Assessment and the prospect
of fewer national indicators were a cause for concern.[118]
They favoured clear national policies, whose implementation would
be monitored by the Government, quality control and inspection
regimes and continued ring-fencing of funding streams (or at least
transparency about specific allocations). Local authorities, by
contrast, have by and large welcomed promises that the machinery
of central oversight will be dismantled. The scrapping of the
Comprehensive Area Assessment was popular with councils; Staffordshire
County Council claimed that this move "indicates that the
Government is prepared to shift responsibility away from nationally-imposed
regimes and towards the local government sector".[119]
Voice4Change England and Urban Forum conceded that a focus on
top-down targets had in the past produced some unintended adverse
consequences, and welcomed the opportunity to put new emphasis
on the views of service users within
a new framework for performance management […]
where service providers are answerable to local citizens and service
users, rather than to national government; that safeguards against
service failure and against discrimination; and where citizens
have a clear understanding of what they can expect, and what to
do when things go wrong. Monitoring of standards to assure quality
should be done through involvement of service users, residents
and peer review. [...] This is not to say that there need not
be accountability to central government. Central government's
role in this new framework should be to provide minimum standards
in core areas, and ensure regulatory compliance, including equality
and human rights requirements in law and robust use of Equality
Impact Assessments to ensure decisions about resources and policy
development are made with consideration of the needs of all sections
of the community, including the most disadvantaged and marginalised.[120]
64. Groups speaking on behalf of vulnerable people
were not the only ones concerned about the potential impact of
a more laissez-faire attitude from central government to local
affairs. Ben Kernighan of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations
was anxious about how it would affect the influence exerted by
and the resources available to voluntary sector organisations:
In terms of the arguments around localism, CLG
is now saying, 'We're sorry, this is a new era; we can't instruct
local authorities what to do about [ensuring Local Enterprise
Partnerships involve the voluntary sector].' If there is too much
of 'we can't instruct' or 'we can't set out advice', then in many
areas both the voluntary and community sectors will do much worse.
It is not a party political point. We looked at where cuts have
taken place, and discovered that there are good local authority
areas and poor ones—it does not cover party boundaries.
Following the useful comment by the Prime Minister urging local
authorities not to cut [funding to the voluntary sector], some
have not done so but others have made massive cuts, before the
Comprehensive Spending Review.[121]
Mr Kernighan argued that a strong Compact is important
in ensuring that the voluntary sector is treated fairly by different
local authorities, but existing Compacts are of variable effectiveness.[122]
The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations
argued that "central government must retain its oversight
over the actions of individual local authorities to ensure against
unjustified local agendas or malpractice" in their treatment
of the voluntary sector.[123]
Secretary of State Eric Pickles announced in April 2011 a "social
responsibility deal" for councils, proposing that they avoid
disproportionate reductions in funding for the voluntary sector,
or give three months' notice and enter into discussions about
how the service can evolve if cuts are made.[124]
65. The implications of greater local discretion
also worried representatives of the business sector. The Federation
of Small Businesses (FSB) foresaw "the emergence of damaging
differences between areas in terms of environments conducive to
business growth".[125]
Matthew Pinner of the FSB told us, "business likes certainty
and consistency [...] a level playing field".[126]
The British Retail Consortium commented that "local variations
in some policy areas could significantly increase the regulatory
and administrative burdens for business".[127]
These bodies therefore argued that it was important to retain
strong central government oversight and leadership; of local government
performance generally, with regard to planning and infrastructure,
and over policy objectives regarded as difficult to achieve on
a local basis, such as environmental sustainability.[128]
66. The single greatest concern of business organisations
was the possibility that local authorities might be given more
powers to raise revenue by setting their own business rates.[129]
The Federation of Small Businesses argued that "the present
models of accountability at local level would be insufficient
to create the necessary safeguards required for this level of
decentralisation".[130]
The issue of accountability for decision making and spending at
local level, said the FSB,
is of vital significance to local businesses.
Although local residents will have a redress through the democratic
process, this is not an avenue directly available to business
[…] it is vital that mechanisms are put in place to ensure
that the business voice is heard.
67. As a way of mitigating the risks of unacceptably
poor service, counterproductive inconsistency or neglect of the
vulnerable, many organisations advocated adoption of some sort
of national minimum standards for services.[131]
Local authorities tended to emphasise that minimum standards should
be framed at a very high strategic level, and to focus on outcomes,
leaving considerable leeway for councils in how they set out to
meet them.[132] Dr
Andrew Povey, Leader of Surrey County Council, told us that the
role of central government in a localised system is
to set the framework and the overall direction.
You are a set of politicians, so you have a set of priorities;
that is what you should be setting out for us to deliver within
our own local frameworks. [...] You have to set out themes, if
you like, rather than detail.[133]
68. A contrasting view was offered by Westminster
City Council Leader Colin Barrow, who said that those who thought
local government should follow a uniform set of standards were
"the enemies of localism".[134]
Andy Sawford, Director of the Local Government Information Unit,
commented that the imposition of any sort of standards or outcome
targets would in all likelihood "feel to local councillors
much like the performance system that we're all celebrating the
removal of".[135]
Steve Freer, Chief Executive of CIPFA, told us that it was "proper"
to institute national standards across a range of services, but
that
the critical issue is to what extent you then
put in place arrangements to try to performance manage those standards
and ensure that they are applied on the ground from Land's End
to John O'Groats, as it were. [...] I think that the challenge
for us is to step back from over-elaborate arrangements for monitoring
and to try to get back to the sort of fundamentals of trusting
local accountability to tell us whether appropriate standards
are being delivered on the ground.[136]
69. One of the key tests of the Government's localist
credentials will be the attitude that it takes to the risk of
failure in local services.[137]
Will it in fact be willing to trust in local accountability to
hold service providers to appropriate standards? Certainly central
government will have to let go of certain assumptions about uniformity
of service delivery and the ability to replicate successful models
nationwide—assumptions that may always have been false but
are nonetheless beguiling.[138]
Several witnesses argued that the risk of failure must be accepted
as inherent in decentralisation. Cllr Steve Reed told us that
"if you want to find out new ways of doing things that will
work, you have to allow for new ways of doing things that will
fail. As long as the failure isn't repeated but is learned from".[139]
Professors George Jones and John Stewart wrote that "the
guiding principle should be that central government should intervene
only when there is a clear national interest requiring action.
This action by central government should require explicit justification".[140]
70. We have been conducting a separate inquiry on
the subject of the audit and inspection of local authorities,
following the Government's decisions first to discontinue the
Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) and then to abolish the Audit
Commission. CAA and its predecessors were the principal means
by which the previous Government sought to ensure that local authorities
were delivering services of a sufficient standard and were pursuing
further improvement. The inspection regime was much criticised
for being over-bearing and too interventionist, and its demise
has not been greatly lamented. Nevertheless we recognise that
the Government has both a continuing duty to ensure proper accountability
for public money and a legitimate interest in promoting better
value for money, and whatever the new audit environment looks
like, it will need to reflect that. We will consider this issue
in greater detail in a forthcoming Report.
71. Others saw central government continuing to act
as a failsafe. Cllr Richard Kemp accepted that Government "needs
to have at minimum a step-in power of enforcement" where
sector-led support had failed to improve unacceptably poor standards.[141]
Professor Michael Chisholm, Professor Steve Leach and Dr Mark
Roberts envisaged a role for both central and local government
in "protecting localities from the most severe consequences
of failure and enabling them to learn from their mistakes."[142]
72. If the direction of travel is away from 'bureaucratic'
accountability and towards local, democratic accountability, the
arguments we have heard for continuing central control indicate
that democratic accountability needs to be greatly strengthened
in order to command confidence. London Civic Forum talked about
ways in which performance evaluation could involve citizens and
service users.[143]
Dr Rob Berkeley, Director of the Runnymede Trust, reported that
We had an extensive structure of race equality
councils across the country. In 2007 there were 100, now they
are down to 42 and they seem to be declining. [...] I am keen
to go with the spirit and suggest that localism can deliver, given
local accountability to local citizens, but the structures need
to be in place. I suspect that they are not currently. I do not
hear any plans to support and establish those local organisations
that might begin to hold local authorities to account a bit more
on equality.[144]
73. One specific tool for local accountability which
has received little attention in the Government's localism agenda
is council overview and scrutiny. Local authorities themselves,
and others, viewed effective scrutiny by non-executive councillors
as a necessary complement to greater local discretion and less
central oversight.[145]
The Centre for Public Scrutiny argued that as an accountability
mechanism, the scrutiny function is credible, legitimate and proven
to have genuine impact on services.[146]
Councillors acting in this official capacity arguably stand a
much better chance than an informed minority of public 'armchair
auditors' of making effective use of spending data.[147]
Scrutiny is a way of addressing performance that is more public-facing
than, for example, peer review, and several organisations pointed
out that its scope could be broadened to involve other stakeholders
alongside elected members.[148]
Suggestions for further enhancing the function included formal
involvement of the voluntary and community sector, perhaps by
establishing independent, community-based scrutiny officers.[149]
It is a cause of concern to some, therefore, that the Localism
Bill contains measures to enable local authorities to revert to
the committee system that preceded statutory overview and scrutiny
functions.[150] On
the other hand, Unison argued that scrutiny has been under-resourced
and too subject to political control by the majority party. It
welcomed the prospect of a return to the committee system on the
grounds that this might enable individual councillors to develop
a deeper knowledge of the services they are expected to scrutinise.[151]
74. Localism has its critics, and they have legitimate
concerns: about fairness, about the need to safeguard vulnerable
people, and about services underperforming. Some stakeholders
and sections of the community evidently do not trust the present
forms of local democratic accountability to look after their interests
when the apparatus of centralised, bureaucratic accountability
is dismantled. We recommend that the Government consider how best
to help these groups use the available means for holding their
local service providers to account, beyond the ballot box. In
particular, the Government must address the contribution to accountability
that can be made by robust—and if necessary enhanced—local
authority scrutiny functions.
75. We accept the case for some form of minimum
national standards in services such as adult social care and child
protection, where the needs of the most vulnerable must be protected.
We recommend that where such standards are adopted they are formulated
in consultation with local government, in order to ensure that
they reflect the level of central government oversight appropriate
to a localist system and do not simply recreate an overly-interventionist
performance regime.
76. We recommend that the Government make clear
the principles on which it will determine at what level different
decisions will be made, and the grounds on which intervention
in local services will be deemed necessary. These questions should
not be decided purely on a case-by-case basis. Communities need
clarity about which decision-makers they should be seeking to
influence, and an explicit statement of the Government's intent
would help to forestall campaigning groups' reliance on national
government to enforce acceptable standards of service. A constitutional
commitment to decentralisation would be one way of achieving this
clarity; in the shorter term, we will expect the forthcoming progress
report on localism in each department to be an opportunity to
flesh out the principles on which the departments are expected
to act.
80 Ev 212, w215 Back
81
Ev 140 Back
82
Q 348 Back
83
Q 403 Back
84
Q 404 Back
85
Oral evidence, 13 September 2010, HC 453-i, Q 7 Back
86
Ev 265-6 Back
87
Ev 159 Back
88
Ev w93-4 Back
89
Qq 10, 404 Back
90
CLG Committee, The Balance of Power, para 137 Back
91
Q 266 Back
92
"Minister Bob Neill angry at councils' rubbish 'complacency'",
BBC News online, 5 January 2011; "Time to halt council chiefs'
gravy train", Daily Telegraph, 5 June 2010; "Let
it be", Daily Telegraph, 2 January 2011 Back
93
Q 19 Back
94
Ev 258 ff. Back
95
Q 337 Back
96
Q 353 Back
97
Communities and Local Government Committee, First Report of Session
2010-11, Proposed Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority
Publicity, HC 666, para 53 Back
98
CLG Committee, Local Authority Publicity, para 48 Back
99
Ev 140, 151 Back
100
Departmental Expenditure Limits Back
101
Oral evidence, 21 December 2010, HC 699-i, Q 86 Back
102
Oral evidence, 21 December 2010, Q 85 ff. Back
103
Q 562 Back
104
Q 141, Ev w84, w192 Back
105
Ev 207, w45 Back
106
Ev w86 Back
107
Q 215 Back
108
Q 213 Back
109
Q 141, Ev 204, 208, w79, w84, w155 Back
110
Ev 207, w84 Back
111
Ev 206 Back
112
Q 213 Back
113
Q 217 Back
114
Ev w88 Back
115
Ev w2 Back
116
Ev 220 Back
117
Ev 203, 209, w2, w17, w155, w200 Back
118
Ev w169 Back
119
Ev 235 Back
120
Ev w221 Back
121
Q 134 Back
122
Q 138, Ev w136 Back
123
Ev 166 Back
124
"Action to boost support for voluntary sector and cut red
tape for councils", Department of Communities and Local Government
press notice, 13 April 2011 Back
125
Ev 167 Back
126
Q 160 Back
127
Ev 168 Back
128
Ev 167, 168, 170-1, 173 Back
129
Q 168 ff., Ev 167, 169, 173 Back
130
Ev 167 Back
131
Ev 195, w192 Back
132
Qq 112, 324, Ev 157 Back
133
Q 324 Back
134
Q 3 Back
135
Q 112 Back
136
Q 235 Back
137
Ev 151 Back
138
Q 90, Ev 195 Back
139
Q 10 Back
140
Ev 138-9 Back
141
Q 43 Back
142
Ev w22 Back
143
Ev 181 Back
144
Q 218 Back
145
Ev 190, 252, w2-3, w62, w83 Back
146
Ev 211 Back
147
Ev 214, 217, w82 Back
148
Ev 90, w66, w223 Back
149
Ev w179 Back
150
Ev 213, w106, 108 Back
151
Ev w197 Back
|
