House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
Prospects for codifying the relationship between central and local government
Third Report of Session 2012–13
Volume II Volume II: Oral evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 and 25 November, 2, 9 and 16 December 2010 and 20 January 2011 in the previous Session of Parliament
HC 656-II [incorporating HC 592-i-vi, Session 2010-12] Published on 29 January 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £13.00
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider political and constitutional reform.
Current membership Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)
Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm.
Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pcrc. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.
Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Joanna Dodd (Clerk), Hannah Stewart, Helen Kinghorn (Legal Specialists), Lorna Horton (Committee Specialist), Louise Glen (Senior Committee Assistant), Jim Lawford, (Committee Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6287; the Committee’s email address is [email protected].
Witnesses
Thursday 18 November 2010 Page
Roger Gough, Councillor, Kent County Council Ev 1
Professor George Jones OBE, Emeritus Professor of Government, London School of Economics and Professor John Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Local Government and Administration, University of Birmingham Ev 9
Thursday 25 November 2010
Professor Tony Travers, Department of Government, London School of Economics and Sir Simon Jenkins, journalist and author Ev 18
Thursday 2 December 2010
Sir Merrick Cockell, Leader, Kensington and Chelsea Council, Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney and Chair, London Councils, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton, Chairman, Local Government Association Ev 36
Thursday 9 December 2010
Sir Howard Bernstein, Chief Executive, Manchester City Council, Andrea Hill, Chief Executive, Suffolk County Council and Stephen Hughes, Chief Executive, Birmingham City Council Ev 52
Thursday 16 December 2010
Dr Bill Moyes, Institute for Government and Jessica Crowe, Centre for Public Scrutiny Ev 68
Simon Parker, New Local Government Network, Jessica Crowe, Centre for Public Scrutiny and Sir Simon Milton, Greater London Authority Ev 73
Thursday 20 January 2011
Mr Clive Betts MP, Chair, Community and Local Government Committee Ev 85
cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on Thursday 18 November 2010
Members present: Mr Graham Allen, in the Chair
Mr Christopher Chope Tristram Hunt Sheila Gilmore Mrs Eleanor Laing Mr Fabian Hamilton Sir Peter Soulsby Simon Hart Mr Andrew Turner ______
Examination of Witness
Witness: Mr Roger Gough, Councillor, Kent County Council and Localis, gave evidence.
Q1 Chair: How are you, Roger? I don’t think you can transpose any one model across. Mr Gough: I am well, Chairman. I think it’s more a matter of trying to get a sense of Chair: Good to see you. how things come together in particular systems and Mr Gough: Thank you very much. then thinking about how that might work within ours. Chair: You’re among friends. We’re trying to fact- But the whole range of things one is thinking about— find, and we’d like to pick your brains, particularly on the constitutional position, the seat at the table and the international aspects of local government/central any interaction with a number of other points like government relations. I’ve carefully read your paper, finance, performance management systems, the presence at the centre in the localities and so on—I which is extremely helpful. Thank you so much for think in a way you have to look at all those, to some that. I know lots of colleagues have questions for you. extent, as a whole. I’ll leave it at that, Chairman. Would you like to begin by telling us an outline of Chair: Roger, that’s very helpful. Simon, if you can your views over a couple of minutes or do you want start us off? to plunge straight into questions? We’re happy with either. Q2 Simon Hart: A quick question. The fact that Mr Gough: Maybe just a couple of very brief we’re having this discussion at all I suppose is an observations, Chairman. implied recognition that codification is necessary. I Chair: Please do. suppose I’m starting from the position of asking Mr Gough: In the paper, most of which was written whether it is necessary. Do you think it is necessary the best part of two years ago, one of the things that and are there any alternatives to the sort of models emerged from that—and, again, I’m probably not that we’re talking about? In the same breath, I just saying anything that’s not already in there—was simply raise a question about how this works in the there’s no absolute localist arcadia if you look round context of devolved Parliaments, too—particularly, in certainly the countries that were in our peer group. my instance, the Welsh Assembly—and whether you Many of the problems that we would see from the had views on that? point of view of local government in this country are Mr Gough: Whether it’s necessary is something one found in other places. So some people have had could argue because it’s almost a question of what reorganisations forced on them; some people have had you’re trying to achieve. I think certainly if you want financial burdens dumped on them; some people have to move away from the kind of imbalance that we’ve experienced the equivalent of rate capping and so on. seen over a long, long time, you do need to make the But the combination of factors that you get in this relationship between centre and locality more equal, country is, I think, unusual. and you need some way of doing that. Now, I think Certainly in terms of the discussion that I imagine you your colleagues on the Communities and Local Government (CLG) Committee, go back to last year want to have today, I think what, to me, was important and the last chapter in their Report was very much in thinking about it was looking at the picture as a about the role of Parliament in doing that. whole. So the constitutional element was certainly I think if you’re trying to think of ways in which you important. I think probably the biggest single element could make some sort of greater formality—whether was local government having some sort of place at the one calls it codification is an interesting question, table that is linked to that, but not necessarily given that we’re not necessarily talking here about the identically the same. So I think during the days of the wider issue of a written constitution or whatever— last Administration, I probably would have referred to then the role of Parliament becomes very important. it as a respect agenda. I think now the phrase is “no One of the various things that we talked about in the decision about me without me”. But, either way, it’s summary at the end of that report was very much that that sort of thing that you would seek to apply and it was a matter for looking at maybe some sort of joint there are a number of examples in there as to how that committee; looking at the balance, looking at works elsewhere. measures that might affect the balance, and giving cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Ev 2 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
18 November 2010 Mr Roger Gough local government not a vote but a voice on that. There again, it’s not something which I particularly explored were some analogies you could draw from overseas in the report. for that. So, to me, that kind of thing, giving the place So I think you can’t quite do that. What you can do at the table, is probably the most important element. is, if you like, throw quite a lot of sand in the machine. You would obviously want something to refer to In other words, at present, it’s been relatively easy for almost for that Committee to work on, which is where central Government to change the rules of the game some sort of resolution, some sort of statement by very quickly indeed and, of course, has done so under Parliament, would probably be the starting point for Governments of both parties—perhaps we should say that Committee’s work. So I think that’s where you’d “all” parties—over the years. So there are ways—and need something of that kind. what I was thinking of in terms of a resolution followed by a joint committee with a local Q3 Simon Hart: Do you, in this instance, therefore, government voice would be a way of doing that see the Welsh Assembly as central Government or without necessarily going all the way to a written local government? constitution. You may disagree with me and, again, as Mr Gough: I would see it as—forgive the weasel I say, you know France better than I do. words—in between. One of the points we make in the My reading of it was that the written constitutional report is, if you look at federal systems—and we don’t provisions about local government in France were have an explicitly federal system but you can argue only part of the picture as to why local government it’s moved in that direction—they are not necessarily operates in the way that it does. Part of that is to do always kind to local government in the strict sense. with the power of the communes, certainly within the Certainly, if you take Australia and Canada, they have Senate. It’s partly to do with the interaction between quite a restricted role for local government. Now, we national and local politics, with almost every national focused quite consciously on England, simply dealing politician having that very powerful local base. with that central/local relationship. So far, of course, the question of what happens elsewhere we left alone. Q5 Mr Hamilton: Well, I was going to come on to But I think you could well look to some greater degree that, and sorry to interrupt you on this. But one of the of formality on the relationship between central and ways that France achieves it, and I guess other national or an intermediate tier of Government in that countries do as well, is to have that representation way, but that was not something we particularly from local government in the second chamber. Is that addressed. something you’d envisage for this country? Chair: Are you happy with that on devolution, Mr Gough: We did argue for that in this particular Simon? report. Now, I think at the same time I seek to be Simon Hart: Thank you, for the time being. realistic. Let me just answer the point of fact first and Chair: It takes you far enough? Yes, okay. We can then come back to that. Yes, in France I think that’s a come back to that. Fabian, I think you’re interested in very important dimension. In Germany, obviously it’s some of the international comparators. the intermediate tier; it’s the Länder which have that representation in the second chamber rather than local government. Local government has a voice on issues Q4 Mr Hamilton: Councillor Gough, I’m told that that affect it. It has a certain amount of constitutional you have a big interest in models in other countries, protection but, again, as I said earlier, federal systems and the only country I know almost as well as Great are not always so kind to purely local government. So Britain is France. My question is this. Can we have a France is the most distinctive in having that role and formal relationship between central and local there are others. You can have upper Houses that have government, which I certainly believe is necessary a territorial dimension but aren’t particularly linked to and important, without having a written constitution any form of local, or indeed even sub-national, along the lines of, say, France or other countries, government in the areas they represent. So take indeed? In France it’s a very, very clear relationship Australia; the Upper House there is another set of between the centre and the locality and never the national politicians who happen to be elected on the twain shall meet. You can’t cross that border without basis of the States. So I think the French model is one serious trouble. Can we achieve that in Great Britain, way of doing it. It’s not the only way by any means. or at least in England, without having a written I think I’ll leave it there for a second. constitution? But just to come back on the point of whether it would Mr Gough: I suspect you know France better than I make sense here; obviously I think there’s a case for do, so whatever I say about that I will say with some saying it would be very, very desirable. Now, I trepidation. But at one level, you can’t have that same deliberately tempered my wording around that in the degree of, if you like, entrenchment if you don’t have conclusion to the report, partly out of a sense of a written constitution. That’s just, to my mind, an realism. Firstly, when I wrote that report nearly two unavoidable consequence. There have been some years ago, Upper House reform appeared to be one of suggestions—and I touched on it, I think, in the those things everybody agreed about in principle and report—I haven’t revisited the issue, but Ferdinand nobody was ever going to deliver in practice. After Mount, nearly 20 years ago when he was writing his all, the 1911 legislation was supposed to be temporary, book The British Constitution Now, was interested in wasn’t it? Things are perhaps a little different, given the idea of super majorities on some constitutional- the Coalition commitment on that. type issues, in which he included the powers of local But I think, again, you have to say that Parliament, in government. One could look at that as a measure but, the form of certainly the Commons, has worked long cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 3
18 November 2010 Mr Roger Gough and hard over the years to achieve a degree of one sense I think you are probably better qualified to agreement—it’s clearly not universal but a degree of judge whether MPs can be willing to accept that than agreement—about a particular model for the Upper I am. House that does not involve any territorial dimension. It’s about basically having a set of people with a Q7 Chair: I just want to get you back to your very different mandate, a three-term mandate, not running specific area of expertise, Roger: the international for re-election, all that side of things, and, therefore, comparisons. Is it true to say that in virtually every approaching things in a different way from the other western democracy there is some form of Commons. I think it would be a brave man who would codification and that probably ours is the weakest of think that, having tried to get even to that degree of all the democracies in western democracies? agreement and seeing whether that could be Mr Gough: It’s certainly well at that end of the progressed, you’d get anybody being willing to spectrum. If you think of purely local government, unpick that. not necessarily. If you take the federal systems, take That is why having put that in—because I thought it’s Australia and Canada, then certainly at a national level a worthwhile idea—I then said, “Well, let’s look at any guarantees for local government are pretty some other options as well”, which is where I came limited. It’s very much read as being a matter for the back to the point about the joint committee of the states or the provinces or whatever. I think what’s Houses and so on. Where the Upper House could play unusual with this country is you have a combination an interesting role, too, is that the more you have of a country that is not federal, at the same time does benchmarks to look at what is or is not a reasonable not have a written constitution and is of a kind of way to operate the centre, to operate vis-à-vis the intermediate size and has perhaps unusual localities, the more likely it is probably that an Upper combinations of size in terms of the size of local House would question things that the Government did government units as well. that went against that. So I think it’s not simply a matter of, “Are we the only ones without a written definition?” But rather Q6 Mr Chope: Can I ask, isn’t there a problem at that’s part of a picture and there’s three or four the moment that too many Members of the House of different elements to it that, taken together, mean that Commons are basically overgrown local councillors you have, as I say, an unusual degree of ability for the and, as long as we have that situation prevailing, we centre to change the rules. Now, some of the are not going to be able to restore confidence in local complaints that in some federal countries local government itself? Certainly, trying to entrench a governments make about state government, or Länder whole lot of local government interests in the other or provincial government or whatever, would sound House wouldn’t achieve anything. Do you agree that quite familiar to us. So it’s not quite as bald as that there’s a problem with a number of MPs usurping the but I think that takes us a fair amount of the way. role of local councils, trying to score party political points on what’s happening in localities? And if you Q8 Chair: The test, I guess, is—and you touched on think that’s a bad thing what, if anything, do you think it—how much the centre has the ability to change the could be done about it? rules over local practice. I would have thought, on that Mr Gough: Well, I think I’d be nervous of making a scale, everyone else in the democratic family has general claim about Members of Parliament, some sort of protection, whether it’s at state level or particularly sitting here, but clearly the role of MPs federal level, whereas here there seems to be no has changed a lot. I think many people here will know bulwarks against, if you like, the whim of whichever this much, much better than me. In the case of my Government is elected. This is not a party question. own experience, I represent a county council division Mr Gough: No, it’s not. in West Kent. I’m in the Sevenoaks constituency, so Chair: This applies to all governments. Michael Fallon is my MP. I would say in our case we Mr Gough: Yes. Again, I would hesitate to say for have quite a good working relationship where it certain “absolutely nobody”; but as a general happens to be that, of course, the MP will interest principle, yes. There’s no doubt that, as I say, federal himself, in this case, in what goes on. If he thinks the countries, while they’re not a friend necessarily of county council, or indeed any other council, is doing local government, certainly provide a bulwark against something that he disagrees with, he will make it the centre, and usually you have defined relationships clear. there. So, in that sense, the centre at least has less Constituents, I think, very often tend to take an scope to aggrandise. If you take many of the other across-the-board approach. In other words, very often countries then, yes, there are rules or approaches and they will raise an issue with me and they will raise an also, very often, referees, if I could put it that way. I issue with Michael and possibly with the district as think that’s quite an interesting dimension. well. And Michael will work with us but I think does If we take the Netherlands, which in some ways has not see himself as usurping the role of the local been closer to us, local government has felt quite put council. One question that has been on my mind in upon over the years. There’s a mention in the report talking about this parliamentary solution is: is it what of something that was pretty much like rate capping MPs would want? Because there’s no doubt the role in the Netherlands. You’ve had the centre in many has changed in the direction you describe and, to that ways quite active in the localities. That said, what’s extent, MPs may feel that entrenching local interesting is that when they reached a degree of government weakens part of their franchise. I would agreement—I think it had the rather clumsy name the hope not, but I agree with you, it is a risk. Frankly, in Code of Inter-Administrative Relations—a few years cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Ev 4 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
18 November 2010 Mr Roger Gough ago, it’s the Council of State, a body a little bit like towards fewer larger units; in southern Germany, the Council of State in France, that had the scope to much less so. But at the same time there is some police that, to observe it and so on. So I think quite degree of backstop. In that case it goes back to the an important point where many countries are different Constitutional Court and there was a case that I is you get somebody else who has the ability to at referred to in what was formerly East Germany where least comment on it, if not indeed blow the whistle. it was stopped. But I think you have a greater formality of relationships there, which does, therefore, Q9 Chair: And to reconcile. mean that—I’m not familiar with the Welsh situation Mr Gough: And to reconcile. that you’ve described—you wouldn’t have that degree Chair: Because there are clearly, quite legitimately, of deadlock because there would be a clear place different interests but there’s some form of separation where the issue belonged. From local government’s of powers, if you like, or some form of arbitration point of view, the stronger position would where reconciliation can take place between two quite undoubtedly rest with the sub-national government, legitimate opinions. with the Länder, but the constitution does give them Mr Gough: If I could just add one point? some degree of protection. But it wouldn’t be the Chair: Simon, did you want to come in on this? Federal Government getting involved. Simon Hart: Yes. Chair: Let Roger just finish his point and then I’ll Q11 Simon Hart: So it is a sort of qualified yes? bring you in. Mr Gough: It’s a qualified yes, I think. It probably is Mr Gough: I think in some cases, also, the fairly much a yes. reconciliation or the more equal relationship almost arises out of a question of administrative capacity. So Q12 Chair: I don’t know whether you’d agree with you take the case of Denmark. There is some stuff in this. Rather than looking for a clear answer through the constitution that underwrites that. If you look at the structure that gives you a yes or a no, what a the CLG Committee’s comments when they visited degree of arbitration or codification might give you is Denmark, it was clear that the Danish local and a means of reconciliation; in other words, a place national politicians took that constitutional where people know they can go. Now, it may be the underwriting quite seriously. Now, that said, that court but it may be other possibilities. It doesn’t have hasn’t stopped central Government in Denmark to be, “I’ve read the book and this is mine and not carrying out, over the last 40 years, two quite yours. I’ve read the book and I think we need to talk sweeping local government reorganisations. But what about something along the overlap”. you do find is that, because local government there Mr Gough: I would agree with that and I think it’s has that as a backstop and has the administrative also about having the place at the table, which that capacity to carry out a huge range of public sort of process, whatever it might be, might support. functions—very, very, wide indeed—almost by Because, as I say, if you go back to some of the definition the negotiations between the two sides are examples we’ve talked about, the pure wording in the more equal than they would be here. So I think there constitution is only, in most of the countries we’ve are a range of things that can underwrite the ability to looked at, part of the story. It is how those ensure that you have less unilateralism on the part of relationships are played out and where they’re played the centre than you have here. out. Now, referring back to what’s in the constitution will be part of it but it will only be part of it. Q10 Simon Hart: I am sorry to go back to the Welsh headache, but you’ve just thrown up something that is Q13 Mrs Laing: Looking at the other aspects of the quite significant for places where you do have local different levels of government that we’re considering authorities who are, in many respects, bound by the here, you make some interesting comments about the decisions not only of central Government but by the way in which your county council interacts with your Welsh Assembly, too. We’re in a situation in Wales at MP and so on, and in Germany how there are different this very moment where you have one coalition of sizes of units in the north and the south. Do you have parties in Cardiff that has a very different local any observations about the piecemeal situation in the government agenda from the coalition of parties in United Kingdom, as to whether there are unitary Westminster, which is essentially almost resulting in a authorities; whether there are two levels of authorities; stalemate at the delivery end. I suppose the question in some places, there are four; where there is devolved is: does and can codification deal with that? national government, you can have five levels; add on Mr Gough: Well, it could deal with it in terms of Europe. As a very general question to start with, any establishing where the authority on that truly lies observations on the piecemeal situation? because what you do find is that, in Germany, for Mr Gough: Well, “piecemeal” is the word and, of instance, local government structure has some course, it has evolved through a series of sometimes guarantees. Local government’s existence and some of quite whimsical reorganisations that we’ve seen over its core roles have a degree of guarantee under the the years. So, I think there’s been a time when clearly constitution. But then also it is for the Länder to carry the default position within Government was—I out any reorganisation but with reference to those wouldn’t say steady—an intermittent march towards points in the constitution. What that means is on the unitaries and I think you created a whole batch of one side, different parts of Germany have, for generally smaller unitaries in the 1990s, and we’ve instance, very different sizes of municipalities and so had a few accretions since then. So, yes, I don’t think on. In north Germany they’ve tended to move more anybody, frankly, starting de novo, would create the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 5
18 November 2010 Mr Roger Gough kind of patchwork we have at the moment—and it is Mr Gough: No, I’m very happy to say. I don’t think complex. Now, I think an element of complexity is it’s good but, equally, I think, to some extent, we are inevitable. Point one, although we do have this where we are and it’s better to be looking at the kind mishmash, we do not have, for example, a vast array of issues that I think you are debating in terms of of councillors. In fact, I think we have fewer that relationship than it is to be trying to look at yet councillors per head, or more heads per councillor or another reorganisation. whatever it is, than most other comparable countries. Q17 Mrs Laing: Looking at the other side of Q14 Mrs Laing: Do we? Christopher Chope’s question a short while ago, and Mr Gough: We do. And a degree of mishmash is the way in which the representatives of different tiers evident in France. President Sarkozy is having an of Government interact with one another. When interesting if perhaps slightly partisan go at you’re dealing with a county council—this is a rationalising that at present. But in France you’ve had sweeping generalisation—by and large, most people a situation where you’ve had, since the 1980s who are elected to the county council have a pretty certainly, three tiers of what are considered to be local responsible position and we know what they do and government. Now, admittedly there is a pretty uniform for what they’re responsible. I would suggest that the structure across the country, but there is a tendency interaction with Parliament and what a Member of then for everyone to do a bit of everything, which is Parliament does is not a problem because there are where the accountability and clarity issue has arisen. distinct areas of responsibility. But when you come So, yes, there is no doubt that the situation we have down lower than that, would you agree that the areas is messy. I would hesitate to argue for trying to of responsibility and accountability are not at all rationalise it in one go because everybody has had clear? Christopher made the remark that some huge efforts at doing that and, in fact, the end result Members of Parliament are—I don’t want to misquote has usually been to make it worse. you, Christopher—larger district councillors— Mr Chope: Overgrown. Q15 Mrs Laing: I cannot but agree with you there. I Mrs Laing: Overgrown, is it? I’m trying very, very was going to say it’s comforting to know that other hard to be diplomatic here. Overgrown councillors. countries are in similar positions, but it isn’t really What is a Member of Parliament supposed to do if a because that is astounding. Do you mean that even constituent comes to see you with a problem? And when you take into consideration county councillors, I’m talking here about the practicalities, not the district councillors, parish councillors, town structure. We know what the structure is meant to be councillors, that we have fewer per head than most but now I’m talking about what happens on a day-to- other places? day, week-by-week basis; if someone comes to see Mr Gough: We do. I’m not sure the figures usually you asking you to solve a problem that the Member include town and parish councillors. But I suspect of Parliament and everyone else knows is a matter for even if you did include them you would not come to a the district council? radically different conclusion. I think what is peculiar Mr Gough: Well, partly I must say I’m conscious— about this country is not so much the number of I’ve reflected since I spoke—that I didn’t answer councillors but this whole combination of systems, Christopher Chope’s question desperately well. Let and you need to spend a bit of time thinking about me first of all answer yours and then try and work my that. Lots of countries have two-tier or even more than way into addressing that one a little bit better than two-tier systems. Particularly if you think of more perhaps I did. dispersed rural areas, there are very good reasons why Firstly, there will, I think, always be a confusion of you have that. If you take Germany, it’s interesting mandates and that is inevitable and it’s not just that you have a combination of unitary and two tier. between Members of Parliament and councillors. It’s Below the regional level, you have some places where across councils. It is one of those things that I think you will have what usually translates as counties, we all, to a degree, live with. And if a Member of Kreise, who will have the responsibilities that, in Parliament has someone come to them then I think it effect, the municipalities below cannot take up, but is absolutely right and inevitable that they will take it some of those municipalities will be, in effect, up. The question of how they take it up is another unitaries because they can take on all that role. So matter and I think very often an MP can take it up they’re basically a bit like the old county boroughs in with the council. They’re entirely within their rights one sense. Other countries will have some things to express a view as to whether they think the council which are similar but I think, because you’ve had is doing it well or not. In the end, the fact is that it is these two or three goes at reorganisation over the the council that can deliver on it, not the Member of years that have then marched a bit of the way and then Parliament. So, in that sense, if they get themselves kind of petered out, it’s that very odd patchwork that involved I think that’s a legitimate part of their you have here that is, I think, distinctive. mandate. Whether it’s always the best use of their Mrs Laing: Did you say “distinctive”? time is, frankly, for them to decide, but I think that’s Mr Gough: Distinctive, yes; the very odd patchwork a legitimate part of the mandate. that you have in this country. Going back to the point that Mr Chope raised, because as I say I’m conscious I didn’t necessarily answer it Q16 Mrs Laing: I thought for a moment you were very well, it would be quite possible to separate out going to say whether it was good or bad, but we won’t the question of local government having greater put you in that position. Distinctive is— strength vis-à-vis the Executive, compared with the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Ev 6 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
18 November 2010 Mr Roger Gough question of whether MPs involve themselves locally. to the Total Place initiatives, which were very much I think MPs may not always necessarily see it that around in the last year of the previous Administration, way, in the sense that they may feel nervous of the it was quite clear that the Treasury was quite often on idea of local government being strengthened. But in the side more of that localist approach. Because it many ways, even if you had a local government which could see the sheer wastefulness of much of the was less interfered with by the centre, that wouldn’t duplication that took place and the need that, if you stop MPs doing precisely the kind of thing that you’ve were going to try and tackle that, you needed described. I think, as I say, it’s a legitimate function accountability to be held somewhere else— for them to do so. accountability for dealing with those issues—because Now, of course, it might make a difference if you you couldn’t do it through a series of Government transferred functions. In practice, if we look at what’s Departments or their agencies operating rather happened with the quango slaughter recently, there’s separately but down to a local level. So I think there not been a great deal that’s headed towards local is a little bit more perhaps going on in central government. It’s tended more to go back into Government than one might think. But no, there’s no Departments, with a partial exception perhaps around doubt that there is an issue as to how the centre has the RDAs and LEPs. If you did, however, have that often felt about local government. Local government sort of transfer, to some extent there would be issues would say, “Well, take a look at what we’ve delivered involving the MP. You come to the MP because they over the years”, and, “Motes and beams”, that kind of would then take something to the Environment thing, I think, probably. But yes, that is an issue. Agency or whatever, and now it would go over more One interesting question, which again you’ll be much towards if you came to the MP, the MP would go to better qualified to judge than me, is what attitude MPs the council and the council would have the point of will take. Are MPs interested in taking up this decision on it. So there would be a change there but I particular mantle? Looking back at the CLG Select don’t think it would be an unbearable undermining of Committee Report last year, some MPs at least, cross- the MP’s local role. I think it’s fair to say that change party, were clearly very interested in doing so and in in the local role over the last 30 to 40 years has been seeing a role for Parliament in doing that. But that, I for many MPs, I think, a very positive thing. think, is where the counterbalance could arise.
Q18 Sir Peter Soulsby: I want to try out on you Q19 Chair: Can I interrupt and say sometimes it something that I’m going to raise with the witnesses appears, from the point of view of Members of that are to follow you. I just wonder whether you Parliament, that people in local government don’t would agree with me that there is a fundamental actually want to push the boundaries back. I’m talking problem in all of this. All Governments will espouse about political leaders and senior officers. They seem localism, but in fact there are large parts of central quite content to be dictated to by the centre and in a government that neither value nor trust local way that, in France or Germany or Italy or America, government. That culture of mistrust makes it very would either be illegal or would have tractors difficult for them to let go. I’d welcome your blocking the motorways or would result in comment. uncontained laughter in the streets of the town or the Mr Gough: I would agree with that entirely and I municipality. It seems to me that the ambition that’s think this comes to the question of where there has to lacking isn’t from Members of Parliament. It is from be the political will to deal with it and perhaps the local government itself. Would you agree with that role of Parliament as opposed to Government. I don’t and, if you do, what on earth can people do to give particularly want to make comments about CLG in some motivation and spine to local government to ask general, but certainly if you go back a couple of years for a little more freedom for itself? when there were the capability reviews, CLG did not Mr Gough: It’s a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, if you emerge from that as one of the biggest beasts in the like, that you’re describing here. I think it does exist. jungle, if you like, and there are other Departments I don’t wish to bang our own drum too much; I don’t that have a different view. think it exists in Kent. We’re accused of many, many Two points on that, though. Just from observation things, but modesty and being overly compliant is not quite recently, one which is quite interesting is health. usually one of them. What I think we do sometimes It’s fair to say the Department of Health historically get is that some elements within local government was probably one of those which took a pretty strict officers have become very used to certain reporting view vis-à-vis local government. The reforms lines being what they are and, yes, I think there is an currently mooted in the White Paper—we’ll see what element of people feeling sometimes a little exactly comes out in the legislation—involve quite a uncomfortable. There are one or two anecdotes about significant change in local government’s role vis-à-vis things that have happened since the election where health, and Department of Health officials have started Ministers have turned round and said, “You’re on your to respond to that. Now, it’s not to say that there’s own”, and people have said, “Oh, but there’s going to been a Damascene conversion or anything of that be some guidance, isn’t there?” So there is an element kind, but that does shift the landscape a little bit in of it. that area. I must say, in terms of people I know within local The second area that is quite interesting is Treasury. government—I’m thinking wider than Kent here—I I’m speaking today with my Localis hat on, rather wouldn’t think of that particular criticism as being true than my Kent County Council hat. But, drawing a across the board, certainly. There are many who I little bit from my experience of that, if you go back think do have strong ambitions and I think where we cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 7
18 November 2010 Mr Roger Gough may have an opportunity is that, bit by bit, it’s been fundamentally I think a lot of people are feeling that growing. Again, if you take what happened under the it’s imposed constraints. We see that the Scottish last Administration, there was a time when—and Government has just announced its prospective budget again, this is not being party political because it yesterday for next year and, I think, probably has local started under the Administration before that—there government by the whatever you want to call it, was this drive towards centralism. I think it peaked in because what they’ve said is, “You could get a 2.6% about 2003 or 2004 and there was a slow but steady cut in your budget providing you do this, this and this. reappraisal that took place in the years after that. And if you don’t do that, then your budget cut is going It never went as far as many of us would have liked to be 6%”. So is that a result of what they’re doing it to have done. But what was interesting was that in part? did provide opportunities for local government then to Mr Gough: Again, I’m not close enough to that raise its sights, start to push back a bit. And I think relationship within Scotland to make a precise there were quite a lot of signs—particularly again if judgment about that. I would say a couple of things. I you take things around, for example, the Total Place think that you need to look at two things within any pilots or whatever—where that was happening. So, sort of concordat. One is, at the risk of sounding like yes, I think what you describe is a risk. I think it’s a cracked record, the question of how it’s policed; there. But I think you only frankly tackle it by an who in the end can be referred to on it and so on. The iterative process. If you give local government more second, which comes back to the point I think you freedom you’ll get more ambitious people within it; were touching on, is money. If you take the concordat more ambitious people will ask for more, and so on that we had between the LGA and Central and so forth. Government here in 2007, I think just about everyone would say that the impact that’s had subsequently has Q20 Sir Peter Soulsby: When dealing with the been minimal. devolved Administrations, the Government are now I don’t think it’s had an effect of making things worse getting used to saying, “That’s nothing to do with me, in the way that you’re suggesting may have been the that’s something to do with the devolved Assemblies”. case in Scotland, but it certainly hasn’t made things Do you think that there’s going to need to be a similar any better; for two reasons, I think. Partly it is again change in attitude if local government is going to be the question of, “Well, okay, fine. What are the actual empowered to have real significant variations in levels teeth to get anybody to look at how things work in of provision and, when tackled with the postcode practice?” You can turn round and say, “Well, you’re lottery type argument, Ministers are going to have to not acting in accordance with that”, but so what? And need to respond by saying, “Look, that is generally the second thing was just before signing that, there something that is devolved”? was something of a standoff around the money issue, Mr Gough: Well, yes, I think that’s absolutely right. and what you ended up with was a set of weasel One area where you could see an interesting issue on words. It was drawing partly on the European that is something like libraries. It was partly a judicial statement of local self-government, which process but during the last Administration, the Wirral theoretically has been adopted in this country. That went down a particular programme vis-à-vis library has, within it, a commitment to buoyant and diverse closures and that was, in effect, called in. You had the local government revenues. Central Government made Wirral judgment and so on. Now, there’s no doubt that sure that did not even indirectly find its way into the councils across the country, particularly in the current concordat there. financial climate, will be looking at that sort of So it depends very much, frankly, on what’s within the element of provision. So that’s an area where, for text of the concordat. Without knowing the Scottish example, it would be very interesting to see whether situation better than I do, I can’t particularly judge Ministers are willing to have a self-denying ordinance, that one, but I would say that, without having some if I can put it that way.1 element of the money issue addressed within it, any agreement of that kind at the very least is unlikely to Q21 Sheila Gilmore: My recent experience of some make things better. form of writing up an agreement lies with the concordat the Scottish Government has entered into Q22 Sheila Gilmore: Obviously the bulk of finance with local government. One of the results, arguably, is to our local government—I’m not sure if it is always that it’s weakened local government rather than the same elsewhere—does come from central strengthened local government—I don’t know how Government. I’m thinking of Scotland where, it’s familiar you are with the situation—which I think 75%: 25% or thereabouts. But if you then impose perhaps has something to do with the fact that, at the restrictions on what you can do with that 25%, you’re end of the day, the purse strings are held so powerfully further limiting it. Business rates are pooled and by the central body, which in this case is the Scottish redistributed on a fairness basis. There’s a justification Government. So, in theory, some things have been for that, but it also causes difficulty for a local devolved further—ring-fenced funds have been un- authority that wants to be quite dynamic and do ring-fenced with a great fanfare of freedom—but different things and maybe is pulling in a lot of extra income. For instance, we get the argument in 1 Clarification by Witness: The 2009 inquiry into Wirral Edinburgh that we have a fairly buoyant tourist and Borough Councils plans to close libraries in its area, which decided that the Council was in contravention of its statutory cultural city. The council, and indeed the Scottish duties to provide a “comprehensive and efficient” library Government, put money into some of these things to service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act (1964). pump-prime them and get them going, but at the same cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Ev 8 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
18 November 2010 Mr Roger Gough time doesn’t necessarily get back that actual previous one, is a quite different approach to the local recompense. So is it fundamentally about money? architecture, if I could put it that way. So the previous Mr Gough: I think that’s an important part of it. As I Administration, I think, in its later stages—having say, I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are gone through what you might describe as a “command about half a dozen parameters that you have to look and control” mode in particularly the early 2000s— at together and the money element is a very important started to move more towards this big focus on one. Two things I would say: one is, on money, there partnership. So you saw that with the Total Place are so many different ways of looking at it and simply initiative, you saw it with the “duty to cooperate” in the proportion of money that you raise out of what the 2006 Act and so on. The present Government has you spend is only part of the story, because one of the not wholly abandoned that. We don’t talk about Total most self-financing groups in local authorities in my Place anymore but we do have community budgets or study was in Australia. That’s because they don’t do place-based budgets or whatever. So there’s an very much relative to other local governments in element of partnership there and health will require terms of their functions. partnership but, of course, it will be a partnership not So they have a narrow tax base but a relatively limited with a PCT but with a set of GP consortia. set of functions. They look fine in terms of local You will have an elected police commissioner. financial autonomy, but that has its limits. So I think Schools are moving in the direction that you you have to look at it in terms of, yes, that degree of described. I think, in one sense, the schools thing is self-financing, the buoyancy which business rates not quite all that it’s always portrayed to be by many might help address, and diversity of funding as well. commentators because, for example, we’re talking But I agree with you. If you end up with a situation about a centralisation of funding, money going direct where you are very dependent on a higher tier for your to schools. finance and all sorts of conditions can be imposed on The truth is ever since we’ve had ever greater school that then almost by definition you are very, very self-funding and certainly since we had DSG—in constrained. So, yes, it’s not all about or only about Kent, we used to beat our chests and say, “We have a money but money is quite an important part of it. £2.5 billion budget”. The truth is £1 billion plus of Chair: Of course, central Government doesn’t have that sits in our account for about three weeks and then its own money. It initially takes it from the local whizzes down to the schools. So if you move to direct populations through income tax and other revenue- funding of schools from the centre, if that’s what’s raising forms and has abducted the revenues to itself talked about, I’m not persuaded that’s quite such a and then decides what it’s going to give back. So it’s radical change as it is portrayed and local authorities not a case of whether they’re going to be generous or have not, in truth, run schools for years and years, if not; the original theft, perhaps, is the place that we indeed they ever did. But, nonetheless, the direction need to address some thought. is as you’ve described. So I agree entirely with what you’re saying. I’m not quite sure what the next stage Q23 Mr Turner: You seem to have come up with of your argument is, but I agree with it. reasons why we should make a change in terms of explaining what happens. The problem seems to be Q24 Mr Turner: I’m not sure. But the next stage or that once you get into the detail there are all sorts of what I was going to say anyway, if that’s of any value, reasons why not only it’s not possible to do it but it’s is that it’s quite good for yourselves in Kent, where almost impossible to explain why you do it. To give there’s a general agreement about the way in which you an example: you’ve just answered the question you are going and—although I have no information almost in the amount of local discretion. A small local about this—it’s probably true in the north-east that it’s authority, a small area of responsibilities, can look clear what happens with Labour councils and Labour very good, but you find it doesn’t have many Members of Parliament, and it’s going to go on like opportunities to do things. But can I try you with two this for 25 years or 50 years or whatever. The problem other variations? At the moment, we have three lies with those people who have one lot of people in examples. We have education, health and DECC. control today and another lot who will be in control Some of those are going towards the local authority tomorrow, both at local level and at national level. So and some are coming away from the local authority. I don’t understand how you can get an agreement, So, for example, health, or at least part of health, especially taking into account what we’ve just taken appears to be going towards local authorities at the into account; there’s the functions and now there’s the moment. politics and they both seem to me to be impossible Education appears to me to be going away from local to explain. authorities and, just to get this clear, it’s also going Mr Gough: Firstly, I don’t think one would away from national decisions. It’s going to individuals envisage—I wouldn’t envisage—codifying exactly the and schools. DECC seems to me to be very interested functions of local government. Again, if you look at in covering an aspect of planning law, which for all many of the constitutions that we talk about, what other intents and purposes lies with Communities and they have in them is usually fairly general in terms of Local Government. the pure constitutional provisions. The peer group that Chair: Could we get the witness’s view on that? we looked at in the report—South Africa was the Mr Gough: In terms of what you’re describing so far, exception, and South Africa is trying to do something I entirely agree with what you’re saying. The travel is quite distinctive because of the historical legacy and in different directions. I think one feature that you see so on. In South Africa you do have quite a lot about with the current Administration, compared with the codification of functions. Elsewhere you don’t and it cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 9
18 November 2010 Mr Roger Gough would be crazy to suggest that central government think if you look at many of the major authorities, would be absolutely bound for ever and a day in terms both in terms of their political leadership and the of changing the functions that local government has. quality of officials and officers they have, it’s pretty What I think we’re talking about more is a set of high. There was a phrase that one commentator used reference points that would give you a greater focus about how central government had looked at their on local government being independent, which is what local counterparts as “hewers of wood, drawers of many of the constitutional clauses in countries that water”—the people who do all the prosaic, rather have written constitutions focus on. So a reference boring stuff and are not up to very much. In practice, point, a place at the table, a committee that looks at from my experience of what I’ve come across with precisely those issues and, therefore, provided, as I local officials, that is simply not true. put it earlier on, a bit of sand in the wheels to make Mr Hamilton: Certainly, in my experience in Leeds it rather harder for central government simply to that’s not true either. unilaterally change the rules. But if, in a considered Mr Gough: I can’t answer across all the authorities in debate, you ended up with changing some of the the country. But yes, there is no doubt that if you functions of local government, so be it. I think one did have that greater degree of freedom you would has to accept that in the end central government will undoubtedly make things—I think you’d probably see have the last word. It’s just a question in many ways a bigger change on the elected member side than you of how quickly and easily they have that last word. would see on the officer side. But, again, there are This is not just true of the UK. It’s true of the other many, many examples, I think, in my own authority countries we look at. The question is how quickly and and in many others where you see some very, very easily can they do that and they can so far, on historic high calibre people on the elected member side as well experience, do it a great deal more quickly and easily as on the officer side. and, therefore, one might almost say whimsically here than elsewhere. I think if you had those rules of the Q26 Chair: Roger, any views on the general power game established you just live with the fact that there of competence? are different party controls. Again, that’s not unique Mr Gough: A very boring answer is that I think it to this country. Local government and different tiers frankly depends on exactly how it’s worded. I’m not of government have to live together with different a good enough lawyer to be able to answer that. The party controls across the democratic world. Well-Being Power was, I think, well intentioned and had some benefit at the margin but didn’t get us very, Q25 Mr Hamilton: Councillor Gough, would very far and, of course, got tripped up with the LAML codification, do you think, lift the prestige, the status judgment. I suspect local authorities will be looking of local government, generally? It’s a very general very, very carefully at anything that we have of a question. Following on from what Christopher Chope general power of competence in terms of what that and Eleanor Laing said earlier, if the status of local wording is because I think instinctively they will be a government is improved in the general public eye, little bit nervous—a bit risk-averse of getting bitten in would that attract higher-calibre people both into the the way that happened with a number of them over officer corps and to stand as elected members, in the Well-Being Power and the LAML verdict. But, in which case that might take some of the burden off principle, it could be a very helpful thing. Again, like Members of Parliament from doing some of the very all the other things I’ve mentioned, not a magic bullet local government casework that they’re currently but, in and of itself, potentially helpful. landed with? Chair: Roger, thank you very much for coming along Mr Gough: I think, firstly, it would be part of a this morning. process that would help. I don’t think in and of itself Mr Gough: It has been my pleasure. Thank you very it’s a magic bullet. But I think if it was part of a much. process by which the way in which local government Chair: We appreciate your time. You have been an operates changed—and as I’ve said it several times, I excellent witness and extremely helpful in our think there are about five or six dimensions to doing deliberations. Thank you so much. that, it’s not just one element—then, yes, I think some Mr Gough: Thank you very much for your time and of the consequences you describe would flow. Now, I your questions.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Professor George Jones OBE, Emeritus Professor of Government, London School of Economics, and Professor John Stewart, Emeritus Professor of Local Government and Administration, The Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham, gave evidence.
Chair: We welcome Professor George Jones from the George, today. You know what we’re doing; we’re London School of Economics and Professor John looking at the codification possibilities of the Stewart from the University of Birmingham. What is relationship between local and central government. the plural of doyen? Certainly, you are two of the most We are not trying to tread on the toes of our good eminent practitioners in this field. We are very colleagues in the Local Government and Communities fortunate not to get just one but two at the same time Select Committee who are pursuing a complementary and we look forward to hearing from you, John and inquiry into localism and theirs is very much more cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Ev 10 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
18 November 2010 Professor George Jones OBE and Professor John Stewart focused and pertinent to the nuts and bolts, if you like. no pressure on Departments to consider the nature of Ours is perhaps a little more stratospheric, looking at the relationship. The predominant culture is against the constitutional and political implications of that. What we are arguing is that you need something codification. I don’t know, John and George, whether that will at least break through that culture; at least you want to say an opening word or whether we’ll force the Departments to consider the overall effect jump straight into questions. on central-local relationships. We have been thinking Professor Jones: Jump straight in. We’ve given our that requires three things. written evidence. One, it requires codification of the principles that should—not are, should—underlie the central-local Q27 Chair: I shall kick off by saying that we have relationship, which may involve statements about the the Liaison Committee this afternoon where we’re role of local government. Secondly, it requires a talking to the Prime Minister, and I have to hand in a statutory basis for that. The civil service is very couple of questions so we don’t take the Prime conscious of statutes and the need to work within the Minister by surprise. One of them is to welcome some statute. But the CLG Committee had a very interesting of the radicalism that we’ve seen since the election on experience in its previous inquiry looking at the pushing powers down to local authorities, a number balance of power. They had two Ministers before of specific areas where I think changes have been them, not Cabinet Ministers but Ministers of State or particularly welcome, and I’m thinking about one of Parliamentary Secretaries, and they asked them about my own areas on early intervention. But my question the concordat and what influence it had on them. They to the Prime Minister will be something along the flannelled; it was fairly clear they hadn’t the faintest lines of: aren’t governments always reforming and idea what the concordat was—and that would be true devolving and localising for the first couple of years of most of the civil service as well. If it had been in when they come into power and then somehow they a statute, although we think it is weak, it would have lose the taste for it? Perhaps the civil service gets to at least received attention. There would have been s the Ministers; perhaps it’s all too much trouble; messages about how you had to pay attention to the perhaps there are embarrassing things that local concordat. government on occasions might do with that extra So the third thing we think is required is a monitoring power. If that is so, what do we need to do to put in process, which we have suggested in the paper could place some bulwarks against central government take various forms but we don’t want to set up another giving with one hand and then two years later sucking quango at the present time. We suggest a joint those powers back? committee of the two Houses, which would report on Professor Stewart: We are advocates of a degree of specific policy changes or specific legislation that they codification in order to give a degree of permanency. felt undermined the principles of the codification so it In other words, actions by Government that change was reported to Parliament. And then it would the central-local relationship should only be taken produce an annual report giving an overview of the with great care and be subject to specific scrutiny. If I situation. Although it’s not in the paper—and George could just explain how I see the developments that may want to say something about this—we also you referred to. I often quote that in the Conservative wanted to strengthen the internal scrutiny of Government, which was elected in 1979, Heseltine proposals, possibly not by the CLG but maybe by a burnt 300 controls. He had a bonfire of controls. But Cabinet committee guided by the principles. within five or 10 years there were probably 500 or Professor Jones: John has given you a very good 600 controls that replaced them. The problem lies very overall statement about our evidence. Getting back to much in the very working of central Government, your question this afternoon, I think it’s a very good which you hinted at. question and, to my mind, the previous CLG Select Most of the proposals that come forward from Committee that reported in May last year pointed out Departments that affect local government, and even the centralisation that had tipped the balance of power from sections within the CLG itself, are considered from local government more and more to central on their individual merits. Nobody considers, when Government. There had been the process, as John has they’re introducing legislation with some new specific outlined, of creeping centralisation, and their grant, for example, that it will have an impact on local conclusion was that there needed to be a rebalancing government and that it will be a cumulative impact on in favour of local government. Our proposals are local government. It is considered on its merits based on the fundamental proposition that we can’t without regard to the impact on the central-local rely on the present culture, attitudes and laws for relations. Nobody in central Government has been protecting what should be the proper relationship accustomed to scrutinise the proposals that way or to between central and local government. One needs assess the cumulative effect. It is only recently, for something to give a degree of permanency to a example, that central Government set out to find out relationship to stop that centralisation occurring, how many plans it had required of local authorities despite all the previous rhetoric from both parties, and it required a major research project. when in opposition, in favour of local government. After the research project came out, people found another ten. How many bits of information had been Q28 Chair: Presumably if you’re to do that with the required from local government? Again, a research consent of the Government it’s best to do that when project was needed to find that out and even that is the Government is feeling in the mood, as they always disputed: whether it is 2,700 or 4,400. In other words, are just after an election, rather than to try and get there was no overview of the relationship and there is it through when what we might term abuses of the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 11
18 November 2010 Professor George Jones OBE and Professor John Stewart relationship have started to take place in year three, Q30 Chair: And would you say that it is not possible four or five? to have a degree of distinction between central and Professor Jones: You might, Mr Chairman, want to local government unless you also ensure that local probe this afternoon whether the Government is in government has financial independence from central favour of decentralisation to local government, government too? because coupled with that word is localism, which Professor Stewart: We were both members of the seems to be decentralisation to sub-local government. Layfield Committee and we stick, in many ways, to its “Sub-localism” would be a more appropriate word for recommendations. Our stress on local accountability what the Government seems to be suggesting, which implies proper local financial accountability and it’s suggests to me an erosion of local government; that very difficult to have proper local financial is, decisions being taken by elected councillors. So I accountability when you have so much dependence on hope you will probe because there is some grant, with the gearing effect of the grant that distorts inconsistency in Government. The Secretary of State the message given by the local tax increase. for DCLG says, “Localism, localism, localism”. That Chair: And a final one from me. is his mantra but he also, at the same time, seems to Professor Jones: Can I just come in? think that he knows best what the level of council tax Chair: I’m sorry, George. Please do. should be. He will know whether it’s excessive or not Professor Jones: That’s an absolutely crucial matter and then insist on a referendum. He seems to know that we should have added to our paragraph 8, where how local authorities should conduct refuse collection. we have our points that you should put inside He seems to know how they should inform their codification. We don’t think it’s appropriate, if you’re citizens about their activities and he seems to know going to have genuine local government, for local about how local authorities shall operate surveillance government to be dependent for most of its money on mechanisms. So there is inconsistency that I hope you central government grant. We feel that local will probe. authorities should be looking much more down to their localities, conducting a dialogue with their own Q29 Chair: In safeguarding whatever codification voters, over both spending and taxing decisions taken might be appropriate, have you considered the 1911 together, so that when they decide to spend more or Parliament Act, which basically allows the second less they have to pick up the consequences of that Chamber to say no to the first Chamber in one spending in the raising of the revenue or the bulk of circumstance only, and that is if the first Chamber the revenue to support it. seeks to extend its own life. Other than that, we now At the moment they are looking up all the time to know that the second Chamber has very limited central government saying, “Give us more grant, we powers. It may delay, but it cannot say no other than want more grant.” I’ve used the expression they in that one case. Have you considered adding to that behave like drug addicts wanting their annual fix, and very short list of possible vetoes the powers and the I want them to be less dependent and really to be allies independence of local government so that you would of the Treasury. We hear of decentralisation for other need to win over a second Chamber were you to Departments but what about decentralising the infringe local government powers in any serious way; Treasury so that it doesn’t have all the taxes, bar in other words, there would be a failsafe mechanism? council tax, under its control but that it gives up some Professor Jones: We could, of course, range much of the taxation powers and uses local government as wider into having reform of the House of the Lords its ally in the wise use of resources? and indeed perhaps a written constitution. We could Professor Stewart: There is a very important point go in that direction. I’d rather not at this stage because that George is making about the effect of most of the I foresee that you’re entering very difficult territory centralisation measures; that they actually mean that a there: complex issues, highly controversial. It will local authority becomes less interested in the views of take a long time to achieve that sort of measure of its own people. The same thing is true also of the protection for local government. Our recommendation inspection side. It has now become more important to is we go step by step and the first step is to give many local authorities to please the inspectorate than statutory protection to local government. Only a first it is to please their local electorate. They have step, but some of us would go much further. developed inspectormanship as a technique for You mentioned the House of Lords, and we do stress dealing with the inspectors. that our monitoring body should be a joint committee of the House of Commons and House of Lords. We Q31 Chair: Is it possible to give freedom and feel we have to bring in Parliament as a whole in independence to a group of people who are not order to challenge the mindset of Government that has themselves demanding it? developed in recent years that local government is Professor Stewart: What people want from it is a very simply the delivery agency of central government, that interesting question because they give different local government is no different from any other answers, depending on the nature of the question you section or division within a Department. We need to ask. If you say, “Do you want the same standard of challenge that very concept and the way to challenge service throughout the country”, they will tend to say, it is to have a codification that states that local “Yes”. If you ask, “Should local people have a choice government is not just a division of central as to the nature of their services”, they will also say, government but is in fact the government of a local “Yes”. I think that local government has not been community, answerable and accountable primarily to strong enough in making its own case for greater its own local voters. discretion. They have accepted the phrase “postcode cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Ev 12 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
18 November 2010 Professor George Jones OBE and Professor John Stewart lottery”, for example, not saying that there may be central government: here is a little suggestion that you postcode choice and so long as it is a conscious choice in this room can help bring about. It’s to do with by the council, legitimated by the election, that is a Parliamentary Questions. One of the lessons we learn justification. from devolution is that the Table Office or Professor Jones: I would have thought that local parliamentary authorities here will throw out any authorities are asking for it. I hope they’ll be giving questions that deal with the responsibilities of the evidence to you through the LGA to show that they devolved Administrations and Government. What are asking for it. Some will. Some won’t and I think about asking them to throw out any questions asked it’s sad if those don’t but it’s understandable why they by MPs on matters within the responsibilities of local don’t. Because of the centralisation, they have become government? That would force a big change of culture dependent on central Government so that they won’t so that MPs themselves would not be dragging central do things unless they’re told to do them; unless Departments and Ministers into the responsibilities of they’re given guidance, “Oh, we must wait for the local government. civil service to give us guidance”. And this, of course, Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you, gentlemen. I like that. sucks central Government and the civil service in— they love it because it’s more work for them, issuing Q33 Mrs Laing: Yes, I like that; if only it would these mounds of regulations and rules and guidance work. In your paper,2 and then in what you both and it has made some local authority areas reluctant said a short while ago, isn’t the crux of the matter the to act without the centre telling them it’s okay. question of—I think you’re right to say not postcode Chair: Well, they now have their chance. I hope we’re lottery—postcode choice? Of course the press will go going to get flooded with views and evidence. There on about postcode lottery, where you have an is no great sight of it at the moment, I have to say, imbalance between one part of the country and but no doubt through your own channels you’ll another. But if you really have true local government promote some interest in what we’re trying to do here. is there not an essential conflict between the responsibility of local government—and the Q32 Sir Peter Soulsby: I wanted to pick up John’s accountability and power of local government—and point about postcode lottery. It was something I raised the need for central government to impose some sort with the previous witness; just to suggest that there of fairness across the country as a whole, to put it in really does need to be a major change in expectations its simplest form? and culture at local level and national level if that is Professor Stewart: It depends where you’re talking to be combated. Is it not the case that Ministers have about fairness. I’m in favour of a degree of fairness an enormous temptation to step in when somebody in the financing of local government. Therefore, I’m points out that there is a postcode lottery in the in favour of a grant system to deal with the differences provision of any service? Isn’t this a major cultural in needs between areas and the differences in change that is needed that perhaps goes beyond even resources in areas. That provides a basis from which just putting something on a bit of paper and each authority is in an equal position in dealing with codifying this? the problem. It’s never perfect; it shouldn’t be perfect. Professor Stewart: Clearly a major cultural change It’s one of the reasons why the local taxation basis is needed, at both national and local level. The CLG should be bigger. You’ll find as you go to countries Committee had a very interesting experience, not in that the more the local authority has its own financial this remit but on the previous one. They went to resources—they still have a grant system, for Sweden just about the time when all the problems example, in Scandinavia—it’s much simpler because with Haringey and the Social Services were coming it’s less critical in its effects on the situation. up. The politicians and the civil servants there were Professor Jones: When you ask the people what they horrified that the Secretary of State had removed the want, we know from Ipsos MORI surveys that they Director of Social Services. That was surely a matter want the price of beer to be the same everywhere or for the local authority, but nobody challenged it here. the price of petrol to be the same everywhere. That is It was seen as a Minister acting and getting credit for fair, isn’t it? So, yes, it all depends on the question it. Not even the LGA challenged it effectively. The you ask. How do we get the fairness? “Oh, central culture of centralism has gone very deeply in this government has to do it because it’s above everything situation. We see what we’re proposing as only one and so superior”. For 60 years, we’ve had the National Health Service and the most vivid examples in the step. It’s to secure that attention is paid to this issue media of the postcode lottery appear in health. If and that should be the starting point for change. But, centralisation will not deliver acceptable standards, as George says, we think it’s quite a long process to it’s the time to give it to local government, because I change the culture, to change the system, and all we’re think that you’ll get higher standards if you have local recommending is one step. authorities exploring with their local voters what Professor Jones: I think my old colleague Professor should be done in their area. Vernon Bogdanor has written that constitutional The whole notion of national standards, the idea that change, codification, isn’t going to do the trick the centre has to step in with national standards, I’m because what is important is culture and political very sceptical of that. I see that as the way to even behaviour. But political behaviour and the culture of more centralisation. If you have your national organisations are very much influenced by the formal standard, whatever it is, are MPs going to accept that structures and rules of the game in which they operate national standard, which is essentially low? You’ll and you’re dealing at a fundamental level with these basic rules of the game. Changing the culture of 2 Ev cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 13
18 November 2010 Professor George Jones OBE and Professor John Stewart want improved services, higher standards. So your Professor Stewart: It’s a very interesting question. pressure will come on central Government to raise Why do we get them in the health service but we that standard. By giving to central Government the don’t get them in local government? The treasurer, the responsibility for national standards, you’ve created a former finance committee, now the cabinet; even self-generating pressure for centralisation. So I’d get when there is overspending, it’s corrected within a away from that approach. year. Mrs Laing: Thank you both. Q34 Mrs Laing: I’m delighted to hear you say that, because personally I happen to agree with you. But Q36 Chair: I suppose you could argue that, along I’m just thinking it through, because we had some with your package, you could have, for example, a elements of this in the 1980s. What does central requirement—as they do in many if not most government do then if the model is followed through American states—for a balanced budget provision that where there is true accountability and true tax-raising would be part of the settlement. powers given to local authorities at lots of different Professor Jones: Which local authorities have now. levels but with the built-in measures, which Professor Professor Stewart: There is clearly a balanced budget Stewart mentioned, to make up for some areas of the for that. country having greater tax-raising ability than others, Professor Jones: That’s the reason why the National which is absolutely correct? But then what happens if Health Service gets into trouble and local the people choose a particular government of a government doesn’t. particular local area that decides, let us say, to spend far more than we would consider the norm and, Q37 Chair: And the local authority could borrow therefore, to raise their local taxes, and the effect of against its credit rating and if it had an appalling credit raising those local taxes would be to drive out rating it wouldn’t be able to borrow to get into businesses and make old people not able to pay the bankruptcy in the first place. I guess the final check taxes pay and so on? You can imagine the situation. must be the electors themselves who decided to put What then should central government do? that group of people in. Professor Jones: Nothing. Professor Stewart: One of the problems of Mrs Laing: That’s a brilliantly purist answer. intervention is that you cut short the democratic Professor Jones: We want Parliament to impose process; in fact central government acts rather than duties on local authorities to provide education or to the local electorate acting. provide health. It’s not for central government and we hope that the financial arrangements will not be such Q38 Chair: You’re not proposing the suspension of as to drive out business, because we’re proposing, human rights? So if there is a local authority that following the thinking of the Layfield Committee, that decides to not educate its children or to do something we have local authorities getting the lion’s share of equally dramatic there is a legal framework that their resources from taxes bearing on their own voters. covers central government, let alone local So you’ll have vital, we hope, local democracy, more government. That would be continued and there candidates coming forward, higher turnouts because would be jurisdiction over those abuses, wouldn’t the local elections will matter and they’ll be seen to there? be about something. Professor Stewart: Yes. We are proposing that local Can I put to you a point that my LSE colleague, government is subject to the law laid down by Professor Tony Travers, always makes on this issue? Parliament. We think that, in relation to local I don’t know if you are having him before you. government, that law should lay down general duties Chair: We are, yes. tather than a detailed prescription of what should Professor Jones: Well, 30 years ago, people thought happen. The requirements that are laid upon local there ought to be a ban on smoking because it’s a authorities are the same as those for other people: to killer, or the advertising. We had to wait all this time respect human rights. It’s true of those countries that to get the bans, the restrictions; we had to wait for have the power of general competence, that the power central government to do it. Suppose Parliament had of general competence cannot undermine the rights, said, “We leave that to local government”. Some which in many cases are constitutional rights. That authorities would have done it, some wouldn’t, and I bears upon the local authority. bet more lives eventually would have been saved if it On the power of general competence, an interesting had been put in the hands of local authorities. change has taken place. I was brought up to talk about the power of general competence. The Government Q35 Mrs Laing: I’m sure that’s right, and I entirely talks about the general power of competence. Is it agree with your line of reasoning but it still leaves the different? My suspicious mind wonders whether that question. What if you have an extremist government is actually so, but it is a significant change, in the elected in a small part of the country and their same way as mayoral referendums are now called economic policies effectively bankrupt that part; let us confirmatory referendums. Again, it’s strange because say, a city in the Midlands? That could happen. Who it arouses suspicion in people like me. picks up the tab? Professor Jones: The bankruptcy and deficit; it Q39 Mr Chope: I think it’s a real tonic to have such happens now with the National Health Service, once wisdom and experience in our presence this morning. you have the centralised, nationalised system. We I think that our two witnesses have really put their don’t have these deficits with local government. fingers on the point of our frustration as cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Ev 14 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
18 November 2010 Professor George Jones OBE and Professor John Stewart parliamentarians regarding the Government’s professionals, such as I was when I was a leader of a agenda—they talk the talk about giving us more council, from being able to engage in that type of power but they’re not giving us more power. In the activity? Do you have any comments on that? same way they’re talking the talk about giving more Professor Stewart: You can argue it both ways. The power to local authorities through localism but in fact payments have made it possible for some people to they’re not going to; they’re going to go for this very get on the council who would not otherwise have been interesting concept of sub-localism. What I wanted to able to. I’m in favour of what has happened on ask you was, using all your experience and seeing payments, in the same way as I’m in favour of what what has happened over the years, what do you think has happened to MPs over the years. It’s recognised has happened to the quality of people who are in local that this is a job in which there is a public service government and have been attracted to local element but there is hard work to be done for which government as a result of the increasing pressure for there should be some payment in the situation. centralisation? Do you think that any of the changes Therefore, it has strengthened the situation. that you are arguing for would result in more or One of the remarkable things, just on your general different people being attracted into local question, is that I think that the reduction in powers government service? has had relatively little effect on the recruitment of Professor Jones: I love that question. When I did my councillors. I think, on the whole, the quality of doctoral thesis in the early 1960s I studied my home councillors is higher today than it was about 50 years town of Wolverhampton. I took a long period from ago. If you think about 50 years ago, many authorities the 1880s to 1960, and one of the things I studied was were run by a single individual, a very powerful the calibre of councillors. I can report my finding leader. Many of the councillors today would not quite clearly over that long period that each year there tolerate that degree of a powerful leader that was were moans about how they were all better in the good customary in many of the great cities where people old days, and this is consistent. I took this back, served for manyyears as leader and were virtually looking in the records, to 1848. There has been never challenged in the situation. Now you have a decline ever since then and this is a perpetual moan more challenging council. So I think I’m reluctant to that the calibre of the councillors was far better in the say that the quality has gone down. I think the olden days. Now, when you look at the educational frustration becomes greater when you have got onto qualifications of councillors, they’ve shot up. I’m not the council. They’ve found that what they want to do the one to say that you can correlate educational has been overturned by a Minister and so on and so qualifications with being a good or bad councillor. I forth. Therefore, I think in some areas, turnover has think it’s totally irrelevant. increased and people haven’t stayed on all that long. Getting back to our argument, I wonder why people That has happened quite a lot in London, I think. become councillors now. When local government has seen its powers so eroded, its discretion limited and Q41 Mr Hamilton: when they’ve been subject to such abuse from the I would absolutely agree with local media, why should they do it? It’s a wonder to your last comment, Professor Stewart. In my me that people do come forward. I know parties have experience of over 25 years of both being a councillor to go to great efforts to get candidates. I’d like to bet and then being a Member of Parliament the calibre of that if our vision of genuine decentralisation takes our councillors has increased pretty sharply in the city place in which local authorities are taking decisions of Leeds, but then we have a massive budget and quite that are seen to matter, when they’re having to engage a lot of powers in spite of over-centralisation. Can I with their local voters about taxes that really bear on come back to a point that Eleanor Laing made them—because in our model, the bulk of the local earlier—I think you answered the questions very well spending will be financed by local taxes on voters— between you—about what happens if the local electors then I think there would be more vital local politics, elect somebody quite extreme or a regime that is discussion, activity. People will want to come taking crazy decisions? Can I just put to you that one forward, because what local government will be doing of the great strengths of certain local authorities is the will really matter to them and their families. annual elections, the one-third retiring each year, which our metropolitan districts have. I don’t know Q40 Mr Chope: Just a supplementary. Obviously in how many outside that have. That makes for quite a the time that you’ve been monitoring local lot of fluidity and dynamism and it means that in the government, we’ve moved from a stage when situation that we had in Liverpool, for example, it was councillors received no remuneration at all, or possible—especially if turnouts increase because local virtually no remuneration—certainly leaders of authorities have more power and there is this councils received nothing but did that as a part-time codification that we’re looking for—for people to supplement to what they were already doing. Do you chuck somebody out or an Administration out within think that the fact that local government councillors a very short period of time if the electors don’t like are now paid has created a change in the sort of person what they’re doing. I just put that to you. My question who is attracted and that we’re getting more people is this, that— regarding it as a supplementary job to their pension Professor Jones: Can I interject and say Doncaster, past retirement? And perversely, because local where even the councillors think that the voters have councillors are being paid, it’s regarded as being voted into office a totally unsatisfactory, directly almost a full-time job to be the leader of a council and elected mayor, they’ve passed votes of no confidence that almost excludes people who are young on him and nothing can be done. He’s stuck there cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 15
18 November 2010 Professor George Jones OBE and Professor John Stewart because we don’t have mechanisms of recall in this respond, and it’s not necessarily governed by national country. trends, when something goes badly wrong. Professor Stewart: They passed two on his predecessor as well. Just a passing point. One of the Q45 Mr Hamilton: May I come back, because my things that worries me about the elected mayor main question follows on from your very excellent proposals, or the Government going to have referenda, replies about how important the local electorate is. is surely this is the time is to think whether we have One of the problems all Members of Parliament face the right legislation governing elected mayors. It’s a is that very often our electors, who often make very unique position: somebody, a single individual who subtle choices, look at us to correct the problems that cannot be removed by any means other than he breaks councillors will not deal with, cannot deal with, are the law within a four-year period. Prime Ministers can not competent to deal with. Isn’t the problem here that be removed within a four-year period. Other countries we have a massive lack of education among parts of recognise this and most of them have some our electorate that don’t understand the difference mechanism, not an easy mechanism, by which you between local and national government and think that can call or recall elections by a certain percentage or very often an MP is in charge of the councillors and a special vote of no confidence can be passed. Surely can tell them what to do? They think that we can we should be thinking about that in the light of the resolve the problems that their councillors are unable experience of some of them. or unwilling to deal with. Chair: The codification aspect of this is what, Fabian? Q42 Mr Hamilton: Does that not underline the need, Mr Hamilton: The codification aspect is that we need therefore, for codification? to teach the old-fashioned subject of civics, as it was Professor Stewart: Yes. when I was at school. We need to teach our children Professor Jones: Yes. more about how national and local government works, which we can only do once we’ve codified it properly. Q43 Mr Hamilton: But it is intolerable that Would you agree? somebody could be in that position; whereas the Professor Stewart: I think codification, as far as scenario I’ve just painted of an administration elected you’re making clear what the roles of the different almost annually, you can turf out the leader quite bodies are, would help in this respect. Just one passing easily. comment on that; it is true that people go to MPs with Professor Stewart: This is one of the subjects on local problems. It’s also true that they go to which we disagree, by the way, about elections by councillors with national problems. The average thirds, because we both defend the system we know. councillor finds himself dealing with health issues, I live in Birmingham, which is elections by thirds. and with social security issues, partly because the That seems to me, for the very arguments you’re problems don’t always fit into boxes. But it’s the putting, the right one. George lives in London where reverse aspect of your remarks and leads on to the elections are every four years and, therefore, that codification issue. seems to him to be the right one. Chair: I’m going to ask Simon to come in. But I do Professor Jones: But I would leave the decision on remind colleagues I’m keen that we don’t tread on the which you use to the local people, the local authority, toes of our colleagues on the CLG Committee who to decide because it will differ in different areas. are doing a report on Localism. I know that we’ll stick Professor Stewart: Yes, I would too. to codification, which is our baby.
Q44 Chair: Can I press George on that? Would that Q46 Simon Hart: I have to confess to getting be part of your codification proposal, that local people increasingly depressed as the morning has gone on. decide their own electoral system? That is not because you’ve said anything that is Professor Jones: We haven’t put it in our paper. distressing in one regard, but because in Wales I think, We’re trying, in our paper, to have a codification of from what you’ve said, we almost have the worst of the fundamental, basic principles. We wouldn’t like to all worlds. We have two forms of central government, clutter it up with other aspects, as in the documents which has led to, I think in any rate, my own private you’ve circulated: the Scottish, the Welsh, the view, a sort of stagnation within local authorities; concordat, these charters. They’re cluttered up with partly, I think, out of convenience. I just wondered all sorts of service business, programmes; we want to where we go from here as far as your thoughts are in get to the fundamentals. the context of the Welsh Assembly Government and Chair: Fine. John, I’m sorry, I interrupted you. central government as it applies to local authorities. Professor Stewart: I was just going to make a point I suppose it’s a separate question in a way; in my arising out of the discussion. We place great reliance particular instance we have an independent council— on the local electorate and I think we sometimes an independent local authority. That, you may say, is underestimate them, because we assume all local fine but it is an independent local authority acting as elections are determined by national swings, which is a political party, which it does now. As it happens, it not entirely true. I often quote the example of Stoke- seems to do quite well but it needn’t always be like on-Trent, which was governed, when the new unitary that. Picking up on Fabian Hamilton’s point, we do authority was set up, by a council composed of one have a situation where people happily, and have done party only: Labour. Within six years, Labour had lost for many years, vote for an independent council that control of that authority. The electorate had made a in a sense is anything but than independent. I judgement on that authority. The electorate can wondered whether you agree with me that we are in a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Ev 16 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
18 November 2010 Professor George Jones OBE and Professor John Stewart not particularly satisfactory position in Wales and, if Chair: Well, perhaps we should ask Sheila. so, where do we go from here? Professor Jones: I want to trust the electorate. I’m a Q48 Sheila Gilmore: Thank you. I was going to ask believer in representative democracy, which I see at your views on recent developments in Scotland, but the heart of our system, central government-local just before I do so I have one slightly different government. So I’m going to trust the electorate and question. If you want to do what you’ve been I hope that the parties and the anti-party candidates suggesting, is it not going to be necessary for there to will treat the electorate with respect and have a be a much stronger self-denying ordinance about what genuine argument. My own personal view on subjects the Westminster legislature—or indeed independence is, as my students very well know, what perhaps the devolved legislatures—take? Part of the does “independent” mean? It means somebody who problem, is it not, is that the Government here campaigns on issues that it wants to campaign on, for cannot be depended upon on every issue. What on example, education—“We’re going to do this, we’re earth are they going to do? Are they going to consult going to do that”—and then it wants to get them done? their consciences, judge the issue on its merits? So there is a lot of pressure. If, for example, you The advantage of a party as against an independent is wanted local government to genuinely have its own that the members are signed up to a programme. They education system and targets and so on, doesn’t give the voter a guarantee. You wouldn’t buy a piece Westminster have to butt out in quite a large political of electrical equipment without a guarantee. So the sense, perhaps more than just codification? party label is the guarantee. You know which policy, Professor Stewart: That’s what you were getting at, which programme, which leaders that person is going isn’t it, George? to support, but if the voters in particular areas don’t Professor Jones: It seems to me—and I don’t want to want what the parties offer and decide to choose disentangle the devolution settlement—it’s here, and independents, then I’m prepared to respect their in that settlement, local government is the verdict and not call in central government or bring in responsibility of those devolved institutions. So, in national commissioners to govern that area. Scottish local government there’s a different electoral Professor Stewart: Going back to codification, I think system from the one prevailing in England, with the fact that local government is based on proportional representation and STV. It could have representative democracy is one of the more different financial arrangements, although the fundamental defining principles, and I would like to Treasury might contest this. It seems to me these are see something that suggested the importance of matters for these devolved Assemblies and, as an advocate of devolution, I’m not going to propose representative democracy. I’m a great advocate of new something that is going to undermine the settlement. methods of democratic involvement, greater participation, but I do face the fact that in government, Q49 Sheila Gilmore: I think what I was getting at, most decisions have to be made by representative and I think Eleanor touched on this, is that government. The key task, which you find very few Westminster has more or less kept out of the issues people mention, is how you strengthen representative that were devolved but at the same time, we don’t democracy. My argument for more participation by keep out of issues that are local government issues people, more interaction between councillors and the and we have policies on them. We promise the public, is that it will strengthen representative electorate all sorts of things. There’s a good example democracy. I would like to achieve something that in Scotland, in fact. The Scottish Government clarified the relationship between participation and campaigned to reduce class sizes to 18 in primaries representative democracy. one to three, but they don’t run the schools. So, how do you achieve that, or do you then become quite Q47 Simon Hart: One very quick and I think crucial directive and you say, “Right, okay, we are going to point. In Wales, we have an Assembly that does not demand that you do these things above what you have primary law-making powers, but does that get in might want to do”? So don’t we have to have a the way of what we’re all trying to achieve? It seems renewed political settlement as well as a codification to me what you’re saying—and I may have got this settlement? Professor Stewart: I think it’s like many of the other wrong—is that the fact that it is ultimately issues. We would probably say yes; but what we’re accountable to the UK Parliament is a barrier to where thinking is a step at a time that could even lead on to you’re trying to persuade us to go. I’m actually with things like written constitutions at the end of it. you on this. When I see the Welsh Assembly as it is at the moment, it’s neither one thing nor the other. Is Q50 Sheila Gilmore: We’ve had a concordat in that an accurate reflection of what you’re saying? Scotland for three years now, which arguably is Professor Jones: As I understand it, with the reducing the powers of local government, not devolution settlement, local government’s increasing them. We had another example of the responsibility is to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Government announcing yesterday what their Scottish Parliament, that is for them to deal with. I proposed financial settlement would be and it’s very would hope that you in your recommendations would much, “You can have this level of cuts if you do this put forward something that’s so attractive to local and if you don’t do what we want you to do, you’ll government that they’ll be demanding it for Scotland get that”. That is not about devolution of power. Is and Wales as well as for England. that a distortion or is inevitable that that happens? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:37] Job: 008752 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o001_mark_Corrected ev1 18-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 17
18 November 2010 Professor George Jones OBE and Professor John Stewart
Professor Jones: The Concordat for Scotland and the a local authority really makes a financial mess, then Partnership Scheme for Wales we would criticise as the local people have to accept that it was their not being the sort of documents that we’re looking responsibility in choosing that local authority? for, but we hope will come out of your Committee. Professor Stewart: I think it might well not happen What I hope you will come up with is a codification immediately. It would take time before people of key fundamental principles. I realise your realised, because their habits and minds and their Committee is composed not only of English Members culture is based on present practice, but I think it but from Members from Scotland and Wales. So that would happen. must suggest to me that your recommendations are Chair: George, last word? UK-wide. I hope that your recommendations will be Professor Jones: Yes. I repeat what I said earlier. If commended by you not only for England but for local government, at the same time as it was taking Scotland and Wales too. its decisions on spending, had to take decisions on Professor Stewart: Reference has been made to the how to finance the bulk of that spending that would concordats and I don’t think they come near where we generate a very big political debate locally in the want to be. The charter is a more interesting document council and in the wider public, because the decisions in that sense—the European Charter of Local Self- would be seen to have much more impact on local Government—because it’s full of sentences where you people. read the first part of the sentence and that seems right Chair: Any last points, colleagues? Chris? and then there is a qualification saying, “So long as statute doesn’t contradict it”. That would be no Q52 Mr Chope: So, basically, you’re saying you purpose for our code, which is the means of judging can’t separate out this issue without having the issue the statutes. And what happened, I understand, is that of local government finance separated out from the the British Government was in the negotiations about issue of local government itself? the charter, and managed to insert these little bits in Professor Jones: Yes. On our paragraph 8 where we at the end, and said it was essential if it was to be lay down in our written evidence the key approved in Britain. What happened at the end, was fundamentals, under point number 3, “Local that, wasn’t approved in Britain, which annoyed other government needs the powers and resources to carry countries that had agreed to these. But it means, in out their primary role”, I would add something there looking at the charter, you will find clauses there that about the resources coming overwhelmingly from do meet the needs that we’re talking about so long as local taxes on local voters so that you get away from you eliminate the qualifying clause at the end of it. the dependence of local government on central Professor Jones: I think the European Charter is Government grant. much more important for your work, and it would provide you with the first building blocks if you take Q53 Mr Chope: I’m with you on that. But with the those clauses. You can wipe out the qualifications that experience of the community charge behind us, which were later inserted by the British to get acceptance brought down, arguably, one Prime Minister, do you and then, as John said, they didn’t until the Labour not think that this is now asking for an impossible Government accepted it in 1997 and then ratified it in dream? 1998. So I’d begin much more in your codification Professor Jones: I do realise how scarred Members work with the charter rather than the concordats. of Parliament are by the poll tax fiasco, and that means that there’s a feeling, “Oh, we’d better not Q51 Mrs Laing: While we’ve been speaking this touch that subject because if we touch that subject the morning, the Home Secretary has taken a big step, I winners”—and there will always be some winners— see on the monitor there, to decentralisation by “will keep quiet but those who are damaged, they will removing from public bodies the duty to do an be squealing and the media will pick up on that”. I assessment of socioeconomic equality in all that they thoroughly realise that, but I hope you’ll be able to do. That’s a step away from centralisation, but not the rise above it and think in an objective way about what point before us. We are discussing what would happen system would be better for our local democracy and if codification were to take place, defining the indeed for the democracy of our whole country. relationship between central and local government. Chair: That, of course, was a centralising measure. I’ve listened carefully to what you were saying and I That was an imposition. That wasn’t a failure of like what you say, of course, about leaving it to the giving local authorities the ability to raise their own people to decide. money; exactly the opposite. So I don’t think we need That is what democracy is all about: local people worry about that being detrimental to— decide on local issues; they choose their local Mr Chope: We can argue about that. government. But even though the turnout at local Chair: George, John, thank you so much. That has elections tends to be below 30% and, therefore, local been so illuminating and we will think on your people don’t engage, do you think they would engage evidence as we take evidence from now through to to a greater extent if it was clear that they’re on their Christmas on this very important issue. Thank you so own in making the decision and that if things go much for attending. wrong then central Government doesn’t step in and if cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 18 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
Thursday 25 November 2010
Members present: Mr Graham Allen, was in the Chair
Sheila Gilmore Sir Peter Soulsby Mr Fabian Hamilton Mr Andrew Turner Tristram Hunt Stephen Williams Mrs Eleanor Laing ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Professor Tony Travers, Department of Government, London School of Economics, and Sir Simon Jenkins, gave evidence.
Q54 Chair: Welcome. It’s a great pleasure to see you we’re talking about, though much the same applies to both; two very esteemed and eminent commentators, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—has found particularly in terms of local government and itself in an increasingly subordinate role within the democracy. You know what we’re doing in terms of democratic and political system. This is not because our report. We’re looking at the relationship between of any decision that was ever made by a Government, local government and central government. We’re or Governments, but simply because of the passage of looking particularly at whether it should be codified, time and because of extraneous events, which would and we’ve already had evidence from Professor John presumably include Britain’s lesser and lesser focus Stewart and Professor George Jones. I think we have overseas that has required more things domestically at least another four, or possibly five, evidence for Parliament and Government to focus upon. All I sessions to come. We’re taking this very seriously. would say is that it’s a very long-term issue that has As you would expect from our Select Committee title proved virtually impossible to make any reverse in the of Political and Constitutional Reform, we’re looking direction of centralisation. at this at a slightly more stratospheric level than our In that sense, an inquiry looking at codification also colleagues in the Select Committee on Communities begs the question of where the line would be drawn, and Local Government. They are currently doing a that is would it be drawn where we are or would it be review on localism as such. We’re not going there. We drawn somewhere back from where we are, in terms are looking at a slightly broader picture and possibly of pushing the balance between local and central a broader picture that sits with codification in other government away from centralisation, which is areas, which is an underlying theme of the Committee. certainly something, if it were to happen, I personally I don’t know, Tony or Simon, whether you would like would favour. to kick off with a quick five-minute introduction or whether you would like to dive straight into Q56 Chair: I think it’s a question of: do we codify questions? what we have now or do we think about codifying Professor Travers: Just on the distinction between where we would like to be, and I suspect the process you and the localism; those of us who have appeared of trying to codify where we are now would raise before the localism Committee wonder what the those issues. The mere fact of writing down the difference really is, apart from being stratospheric. relationship would immediately beg certain questions, which I think the direction of travel might well then Q55 Chair: I think the localism agenda is very be in the direction you have described. particular. I can’t speak for them, but I would imagine If I can start proceedings then, Tony, and—I was that that Committee is very involved in how particular going to say “having read your note”—having read grants work, how particular freedoms that are being many of the things you’ve written over the years, I given by the current Government, or past think one of the things that strikes me is your view on Governments allegedly, will work in detail and how local government finance and how—forgive me for that will impact very specifically on local services, paraphrasing—but if we are to have a more whereas ours is part of a broader constitutional view. independent local government structure in the UK, Hopefully, it can be possibly more radical than the that necessarily finance must go with that and that you examination that a very specific set of criteria might can’t really have a sort of powers independence but indicate for the Communities and Local Government finance still remains with central government. I’m Select Committee. sure that is an oversimplification of your position but Professor Travers: I should declare an interest that I is it relatively accurate? am working as an adviser to that Committee on that Professor Travers: Not at all a simplification. I think inquiry, just for the avoidance of doubt. But I can’t there’s no question but that autonomy for local speak for it; that would be most improper. government—indeed autonomy for devolved By way of an introduction, Chairman, I think all I institutions, so I would include the Scottish and Welsh would want to say is that clearly we all know that it Governments in this—for it to work, effectively and has been a feature of British political debate for properly, relies heavily on reasonable autonomy, decades, not even just for the last 30 years, that local which in turn relies on the capacity to raise resources government in England—which is what in effect and to be held to account for the raising of those cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 19
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins resources. The difficulty we’ve seen is that a twofold demand from local government chief executives and radical change has occurred over many years, but local government leaders to say, “Let us get on with certainly since 1945. The first is the growing the job; get off our backs”? I don’t hear that. Do you dependence of local government on central funding, hear that? which has effectively increased to 75%; and secondly, Sir Simon Jenkins: I’m sure Napoleon said the same of course, capping, introduced first in 1984–1985, of his marshals. Sometimes you have to be forced to then removed, then reintroduced. So it’s a bipartisan be free; it’s an old cliché. But if the reason for not policy. Capping, if ever anything symbolised the decentralising power in Britain is that nobody wants problem that the Committee is dealing with, with this it, or none of those people on to whom you would inquiry, it is the introduction and Government be decentralising it wants it, you’ll never decentralise sustaining the use of capping in relation to what is a power. I think you do need to take what might be relatively small local tax anyway. So, I absolutely called an ideological view of this. Do you really agree that the capacity to raise taxes, and to be held believe in subsidiary democracy? Do you really to account for the level of them, is an essential part of believe there should be tiers of public administration any devolved government and any constitutional accountable to electors? If you really believe that you settlement. would do it. It doesn’t matter if the lumpen mass out Chair: Simon, any comments on that? there, who you say don’t really want it, don’t scream Sir Simon Jenkins: You’re going to have a lot of out for it. trouble today, because there’s no way Tony and I are I do recommend the history of the lois d’affaires in going to disagree. France, when the most centralised regime in Europe Professor Travers: We’ll find a way. decided to decentralise power. That was on the back Sir Simon Jenkins: We’ll desperately try and find a of a political disagreement between the big city way. It’s like being on a radio show when they haven’t mayors, the then socialists, and a conservative done their research properly. government in Paris. So it was partisan to that extent, but it finally was the big cities demanding power and Q57 Chair: I think, Simon, your problem may be they got it. It worked; it was written down; it was that members of the Committee may disagree. constitutional. I think you do need to know what it is Sir Simon Jenkins: Let’s come on to that. I totally you want to achieve at the end of it, but then also agree with what Tony has just said. What interests know how you’re going to get it and it’s no good me—I have to admit as, like Tony, a long labourer in saying, “Oh, they don’t really want it”. this vineyard—is not the truth of the matter or what Chair: I’m going to ask Fabian to come in to follow should be done and where we want to be, it’s why we up the point about France, but Tony— never get there. I’m just going to express the same Professor Travers: You’re right; there isn’t anything scepticism I did before the localism Committee. I am like the pressure and demand from the existing system deeply sceptical about these Committees, because of local government in England for reform. With due you’ve been saying it for so long and it has got respect to those around the room who have been on absolutely nowhere. I think it’s no longer interesting local authorities, I think that at some level this has whether you have a constitution for local government, gone on for so long there is a sort of war-weariness, whether you ought to delegate financial powers to and we will be hard pushed to avoid it this morning. local government; the only thing that’s interesting is There is a sort of war-weariness and an acceptance. I why do you never do it? The reason is I imagine all think that also, dare I say it—and this is a good reason of you stood up at the General Election and said, “We for why things need to change—the blurred promise to cap council taxes”. As long as central accountability suits everybody. It lets everybody off politicians say things like that, or protest at the the hook, because local government can say, “All postcode lottery or complain that it’s different in the these cuts, it’s really central government”. south east from the south west, nothing will ever change. My profession will take a lead from you; it Q59 Chair: One witness called it “the Stockholm will always be a good story. On the radio this Syndrome”. morning: diabetes in the south west is worse than Professor Travers: The Stockholm Syndrome is a diabetes in the south east. So what? But the fact is way of looking at it. As I understand “the Stockholm that’s the way the political community in Britain Syndrome” that is actually sympathising with your responds. I think the only interesting question is: why captors, isn’t it? There is an element of that about it. is that the case; not: what should we do? I think this goes further. At some level it does suit both central government and local government for Q58 Chair: Terribly fatalistic, Simon, and awfully blurred accountability. The codification that you’re stereotyping of Members of Parliament, many of discussing, however achieved, would improve that. whom have laboured at least as long as you in this People would know where accountability lay, or vineyard and do want to see some progress in this could know. area. I am sorry to sound defensive, but many of the colleagues around the table came through the local Q60 Chair: Just to come back to Simon’s point. I government ranks and actually see that there should think some of the points you’re making about local be a way forward. government could also apply to Members of I think of more interest is—it’s a question I asked Parliament, and perhaps we need to distinguish Professor Jones—how do you give freedom to people between Parliament and Government. I think the who are not actually demanding it? Where is the great current settlement is very much in favour of the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 20 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins executive and it may be accepted by local mayors and the Assemblée Nationale, but I think that government. Parliament is somewhere in the middle, is largely a party relationship. Members of Parliament themselves. That is why I think we do have a useful role to promote, if we feel Q63 Sir Peter Soulsby: Just to follow on from that, it appropriate, a different sort of view for this because I take it from that that you very much welcome the we are not Government. We may be prisoners in our Government’s move towards encouraging the 12 own little open prison but we’re not responsible for largest cities to have elected mayors and would want what Government is doing. So, perhaps there is a role to go on beyond that? for us after all, Simon, I don’t know. Sir Simon Jenkins: Tony Blair wanted it too. Sir Simon Jenkins: Well, I’m not sure. On your particular point, and it is Tony’s point as well: there Q64 Mr Turner: That is the Government telling is a huge vested interest in unaccountability in British them they have to have a vote on whether to have a democracy generally. If you take the central point of local mayor. It’s not them deciding. The lead comes this relationship, which I regard as rate capping—rate from the national government, doesn’t it? capping to me is the one litmus test of this whole Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes, they’re being forced to be debate, as Tony said—I can remember the roar of free. I have to say, I think very few of them will vote approval from the back benches when both front for it. Tony may disagree. I just think people ought to benches said, “And we’ll continue rate capping”. I have a mayor, they ought to vote for someone who is don’t think, and I’d love to be corrected, a single MP going to lead their local community, and at the got up and protested at that decision. moment the person who leads the local community is the police chief. If ever there is a disaster or an Q61 Tristram Hunt: When was that? accident the person who is on the radio or the Sir Simon Jenkins: It was before the election. television is either the vicar or the police chief. I think Chair: We are collectively guilty, although I think it’s just wrong that there should be no spokesmen for individuals may have a reasonable record in standing local communities in this country, alone in Europe. up for certain things and getting their heads chopped off to boot, but there we go. Fabian, just quickly you Q65 Mr Turner: I think we might disagree about wanted to say something on the French example. that. What I am worried about is: why we are having this discussion? Because we have a system that cannot Q62 Fabian Hamilton: Yes. Simon, just on the point be changed. Our system is stuck, whether we like it that you made about the French constitution. Isn’t one or not, at least as far as England and the delegation of of the reasons for that pull away from central responsibilities to Wales and Scotland, and so on. All government—that demand by mayors for separation those things are decided by the Crown and the or autonomy for local government—isn’t that because Government. We can talk forever about it but it’s many mayors are actually members of parliament? never going to change because we have a system that Because, as you said yourself in the Huffington Post, depends on those two elements. So, why are we I think in May, we should have a separation of powers. talking about it? Because the French have a separation of powers that Sir Simon Jenkins: Well, you’re hoping to change it, means that in many ways members of parliament have I assume. I totally agree with your analysis. This is quite a separate role in holding the executive to just a special subject, but my view of it is that there account, because they are not part of the executive is still what might be called “a monarchical gene” and they are often mayors of big cities. I’m thinking running through British public administration, and it of Pierre Mauroy, for example, in the late 1980s, is that the Crown and Parliament decides what should former Prime Minister but member of the Assemblée, happen to the country and everything beneath that is député, and mayor of Lille. Sadly, the mayor of Leeds, by the grace of the Crown. Most countries have with whom I visited him, thought he was the deputy constitutions; they have things written down; they mayor of Lille, député-maire de Lille. But isn’t that have protected institutions and protected the reason that you have the separation of power, subsidiarities. We don’t, we rely on the Crown. When something that you want to see in this country? you had powerful barons demanding Magna Carta Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes, to all that, except with the there was a sort of balance of power. That balance of Huffington Post it must have been stolen from The power in the 20th century evaporated. As you say, if Guardian. It happens a lot. France is intriguing you’re going to be free of it you’re going to have to because the key to French politics is, of course, the be freed by grace of the Crown. commune, the concept of the commune and the absoluteness of the loyalty of the French political Q66 Mr Turner: Yes, good. Well, I’m glad we agree community to the concept of commune. One of the about that. So, what we are doing is talking about the reasons why I think France is a good European in a things that we can talk about and we can discuss and sense, is their political focus is their mayor; 95% we can push at the edges, but there is no check on name recognition of the local mayor. It’s so the Crown? impressive. It may be corrupt, it may be all kinds of Sir Simon Jenkins: Until 1984 local councils could things, but the fact of the matter is the French love fix a rate. From 1984 onwards that evaporated and no their mayoralty. I think the great surge towards one has ever dared reintroduce that liberty, but it was a decentralisation in the 1970s and 1980s arose from the liberty enshrined in local government and is still there. city as a commune and the concept of that. You’re Professor Travers: Of course, the system is as you quite right, there is a curious relationship between both describe but it is capable of making decisions cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 21
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins from time to time that, however temporarily and on this one. We had a thing, which I think is relevant however capable of being reversed, do suggest a to your question, which is called “the Marbella beach willingness to inch down the road down which the test”. You see someone on Marbella beach and they’re Committee is looking. That is—to come back to it speaking English and you say, “Oh, where are you again—Scotland and Wales are, without question, from?” The answer to the question is your structure constitutional changes brought about by the system for local government. If they live in a big city they that you’re describing but which have elements of a say “Leeds” or “Harrogate, just”, “King’s Lynn, just”. constitutional settlement about them, particularly the They describe a county borough in the old terms. If longer they prove to be durable. For the time being they’re not from London or Leeds or Bristol they they look durable. They were reinforced by a reply “Gloucestershire”, “Norfolk”, “Suffolk”, referendum at the time they took place. Northern “Yorkshire”, in which case you have to ask a second Ireland has followed them down that route. Even the question, “Oh, really, where?” They then say London system was semi-constitutional or seen as “Lowestoft” or “Crawley”, and that’s two-tier. such. So, even the system that you’re describing is Nobody ever says a region and they never say a capable, because it is that kind of system, of deciding district council area. So the two artificial imports into what it wants and it can decide to do things that are, local government of central government are a region in the logic of its own terms, against its own best and a district. The two ones that are real are counties interests. It can hand power to other people, hand and municipalities of some sort: a parish or a town or power to anybody, because it’s the kind of system a city. That has always stayed with me because it you’ve described. seemed to be real. But it doesn’t matter how many times you change Q67 Mr Turner: I accept that. The problem as far as local government—we’ve changed it a dozen times in England is concerned is that nobody knows at what the last quarter of a century—people do come back to level. Level is an issue in England, which doesn’t these geographical senses of identity: their counties seem to be an issue in Scotland. Is this a county thing? and municipalities. In countries where they have them Is this a parish council thing? Is this a regional thing? they work. They work in France; they work in Most people couldn’t describe their region. Denmark; they work in Scandinavia. Only in England Professor Travers: Well, yes and no. I hardly dare say are we constantly trying to reform them, and here we this with the former leader of Leicester and others are discussing it, yet again, because they don’t work. sitting here, but I think in many cities people know what it is. I think people in Birmingham and Leicester, Q70 Mr Turner: Sorry, when you say “They don’t and doubtless in Stoke-on-Trent, know where the city work”, you mean the district? is. They know what it is. It is true there is a continuing Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes. dispute—itself triggered, by the way, by debates in Mr Turner: Yes, I absolutely agree. Parliament and Government—about whether we should or shouldn’t have counties, should or shouldn’t Q71 Mrs Laing: Coming back to what you have more parishes, should or shouldn’t have regions, describe—and I entirely agree—as the central point but that is a product of artifice really. I suspect it’s being capping, because it all comes down to who has partly as a result of England’s tiny geographical size the power, the ability to spend money and who has and the feeling we need regions and we need counties the ability to raise money from the local taxpayer. You and we need districts and we need parishes, “Oh, and brought up an interesting point about Members of that’s too much so we should abolish things”. Parliament all cheering the continuing of rate capping. But despite all the abolitions and re-creations, Might I suggest, and see whether you agree or not, Leicester continues to exist. Leicester is a real place this is because we are afraid of things going wrong and Leicester is now thinking of voting to have a and where does the buck stop if things do go wrong. directly elected mayor. So, some things are more Let me give you an example. Epping Forest District permanent than others and I think the things that are Council—my district council, an excellently run impermanent and get changed all the time, not all but organisation—until recently had six BNP councillors generally, are ones that Parliament and central on it out of 59. Now supposing we were trusting the government feel the need to do something about. So I people and the people decided to put on 40 BNP; I don’t think it’s quite as impermanent as you think. realise, Mr Chairman, I am being rude about the BNP I think county, city and town civic understanding is and I won’t withdraw that. very strong. Chair: I’m just waiting for the question, Eleanor. Mrs Laing: The question is: where does the buck Q68 Mr Turner: And true too for the Isle of Wight. stop? Supposing you have a local government unit Professor Travers: Much more easily so in the Isle that is given autonomy; supposing we don’t have of Wight. capping; supposing that unit, at whatever level it might be, can raise taxes, does so, mismanages the Q69 Mr Turner: So we can say there are levels. Can economy and the services of the local authority, then we put them in an order? Would you both like to put where does the buck stop? Does the MP say, “Oh, it them in an order of get-rid-ability? was nothing to do with me”? Sir Simon Jenkins: This is a familiar conversation. Sir Simon Jenkins: You remind me of Pascal Lamy I’m so old I worked for the Royal Commission on in Brussels, a conversation I had with him on this Local Government in the 1960s under Redcliffe-Maud subject many years ago; he said exactly the same of before I even became a journalist, so I go right back Britain. He said, “It’s all very well you going on about cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 22 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins the sovereignty of national parliaments. Suppose they Q74 Mrs Laing: I think that’s a very good point, and get taken over by socialists and mismanage the it comes back to the whole issue of trusting the economy”. You can’t have half democracy, it’s no people, that that is the very basis of democracy. Would good. There’s no answer to your question except, you say then that your conclusion on this part of the “Tough. You vote for them, you vote for them”. I discussion is that we ought to trust the people and think most people who are reasonably responsible that if they make a mistake once they won’t make the about some sort of national government say there have mistake again in allowing extremists to take over? to be some limits, and there are limits: there are limits Sir Simon Jenkins: The only thing I’d say about your of audit; there are limits of oversight; there are limits district council is district councils are one of the things of borrowing powers, and so on. But we’re so far from I don’t like because they aren’t natural political that risk, so far, I’m just prepared to take a gamble entities. I think you’ll find people take a much more on it. active interest in local affairs if it’s Epping or if it’s a Professor Travers: Were an undesirable party to take parish. As Tony said, you tend not to get that sort of control of a government entity it would still be heavily problem when you have a realistic geographical entity constrained by laws about how it behaves. It has to for political activity. behave within the law. This issue was discussed in the case of the BNP. In the run-up to the local elections Q75 Chair: Just to put a seed in the minds of our this year, there was thought to be the possibility that witnesses, we’re having very helpful general it could take over at least one council. Had that discussions. I’m also keen to pursue and have you occurred it would have begged the question, and your bear in mind when you answer: do we codify and, if question begs the question: of whether the so, what do we codify in order to make some political Government should have intervened or not. I suspect progress? I’m conscious we need to make some the Government would not have intervened because: serious recommendations about this. It may be a big firstly, it would have produced a convulsion in the bang or it may be salami but it would be helpful to political system, which itself would have been the tease out your thoughts on that. Did you want to say solution to the problem—as indeed to some extent something in response to that? happened—and therefore stopped that ever occurring; Sir Simon Jenkins: On salami, I think it’s a very and secondly anyway the officers of the council would interesting question. It reverts to my question about: have told their newly elected majority group they had how do you do all this? Whenever we’ve been to behave within the law. There are laws about how involved in this conversation you tend to have one you set council taxes, how you treat people—and, and, group of people saying, “It’s best to try and proceed and—and had the council broken them then the law slowly, we’re more likely to get some reform if we would have dealt with it. So, that is one answer. don’t propose anything too radical” and the other side I think the other is we have parish councils. This says, “Unless you propose something radical nothing fascinating risk that somehow if we set up anything will ever happen”. I have to say, as between the two I new and more powerful it will get taken over; you just don’t know which is likely to happen. It’s very would have thought that by now parishes would have similar to prison reform and drugs reform. It never gone down this route, if it’s such a risk. Parishes are actually happens but all the committees that sit, of very tiny; you’d have thought we’d have all sorts of which there are about 12 at any one moment, always have this discussion, “Do we be radical and get parishes controlled by loops of every kind, and oddly nothing or do we be salami and get something?” Then we don’t. Well, not in the way you’re describing. We you discover you didn’t get anything when you were may have eccentrics, but in Britain eccentrics are salami and you wish you’d been radical. I don’t know good, but we don’t have extremists running parishes, the answer to that. I’m inclined to radicalism, but and I think at some level that is an answer to the that’s me. question: it doesn’t happen now so why should it happen if we gave it more power? Q76 Tristram Hunt: This idea of nice written concordats and written certificates and agreements, Q72 Chair: Could I just interject and say: where isn’t it all rubbish if you don’t have the power in the extreme parties flourish is where mainstream parties cities that comes from, first of all, economic power? are not really strong and not contesting. What we’ve seen over the last half century is the Professor Travers: I think that’s true. growth of regional office syndrome, the collapse of autonomous stock exchanges in regional cities, the Q73 Chair: If you had greater freedom locally, one collapse of autonomous economies, the collapse of assumes naturally local parties, mainstream parties, autonomous, vibrant middle classes and political would begin to flourish once again and they would leadership in many of these cities, all of which feeds squeeze out some of the extreme elements that do well through to the political process. So, even if we come when the field is negated. up with a beautifully crafted political statement about Professor Travers: At the risk of picking up Simon’s competence and relationships, and all the rest of it, if theme of attacking the political class from this side of there isn’t the economic and then political power in the table, I do think that the rise of the BNP did the cities, in local government, it really doesn’t make produce a convulsion—a minor convulsion—which much difference, does it? immediately targeted political activism on doing Professor Travers: No, it wouldn’t. It doesn’t, and we something about the problem. Whatever the problem have a right, because of the not well stylised fact that was it hadn’t been tackled before then. 95% of all the taxes paid in the United Kingdom are cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 23
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins paid to central government. So the 5% is the council of a century now and the prospect to many people, tax, which is itself capped. So we’re talking about including many people in this Parliament, of allowing 100% of all taxes are set by the centre. In such a world the people who they used to be, but are now not them, inevitably every decision about certainly any major back in their city to set a rate horrifies them, but you project will be made in London. That is for sure. Any either go there or you don’t. large project will be decided within a mile of where we’re sitting. That means that desks in Whitehall pile Q79 Tristram Hunt: On that inter-relationship, some high with things that need to be decided; city council of us are getting very sweaty about the reduction in leaders and chief executives and county council the number of MPs from 650 to 600. If we were really leaders and chief executives spend half their time on going to take our paws out of local government, the train to and from London to beg for their project, should we be down to 400 or something? and in the end there is a sort of grand court in London, Sir Simon Jenkins: I don’t think you’re going to do that is the civil service and Ministers, who decide it. To my mind MPs are elected mayors; they are the these things. That is inevitable in a system where modern elected mayor. Basically, people bring you the 100% of all taxes are set by the centre. It cannot kinds of problems that in France they take to their happen any other way. That will, as you rightly say, mayor and the reason why MPs have become so much then weaken the political class in each city, county more localist in their own outlook is they’ve become and town, and at the end of that the only place that the only elected person anyone has ever heard of in you’ll be able to make a real political career—I do the community. So you’ve so distorted the think you can still do it in city and county relationships within public administration to the centre government, just—predominantly will be in the House that it’s difficult to answer your question. I just think of Commons and to some extent the House of Lords. we do elect very few people in this country, compared That is how it will end up and that is how it has to most countries, and we’re under-represented, we ended up. under-elect and we’re not very democratic. As far as I’m concerned the more the merrier. Q77 Chair: Providing you then become a member of Chair: I don’t know whether our Edinburgh the executive. councillor would like a shriek, just briefly. I’ll come Professor Travers: You have a chance of becoming a back to you, Sheila, later but is there any quick member of the executive once you’re in here. response to Simon?
Q78 Tristram Hunt: So the stuff about retention of Q80 Sheila Gilmore: It seems to me that the money business rates, which is welcome, the stuff about thing is hugely important in terms of real power. infrastructure levy, which is welcome, the stuff about Interestingly, what we have seen in Scotland in the maintenance of extra business rates above 15% if you last few years—I don’t know if you want to comment grow your rates, or whatever, all that is very jolly and on this—is while the Scottish Parliament has emerged nice and welcome but it’s not going to change the we have seen a tightening of the power over local balance of power hugely, is it? authorities, through the process of writing a concordat Sir Simon Jenkins: If you try and envisage what is but nevertheless ultimately wielding the purse strings. the ideal state that you want to achieve as a result This year, for example, we’ve just been told, “Right, of this conversation, which is, I imagine, somewhere you can have this level of cuts if you do this and it between the burghers of the city of Manchester 1860 will be much worse cuts if you do that”. There is no or Leeds, or wherever it might be, hugely powerful, real partnership in that, I don’t think. great figures, we admire them so much but somehow Sir Simon Jenkins: The untold story of devolution is it’s all past history. It’s not. It’s also true of Detroit; what has happened to local government; it just is. I it’s also true of Lille; it’s true of Berlin. This is not know Wales better than Scotland. Local government the 19th century; this is modern local government in in Wales has been all but wiped out, and it just goes most places on earth. It’s just not the case in England. to show that whatever body is assigned some degree I’ve just been in Edinburgh. Even in Edinburgh you of accountability will treat its own subsidiary bodies sense the beginnings of a stirring of a sense of just as badly as they were once treated. autonomy. They’re going down the Calman route Professor Travers: That is an argument for rather than the Hughes Hallett or the Basque route, codification. Were we to go down the route of which is a pity, and most of their energy goes into codification, which I think would be a good idea, it shrieking at London, as Tony said. But nonetheless would inevitably have to address the “within Wales there is emerging in Scotland a sort of sense of non- and Scotland” issue, certainly if it was genuinely metropolitan identity. constitutional, and that would be more difficult The great question, which the Chairman mentioned, because of the devolution to Scotland and to Wales. I always comes up with this, “But have you met these think that within the devolved countries there would people? They’re no good. You can’t genuinely believe be an issue of how this would all function, which I’m the people of Birmingham or Liverpool are competent sure the Committee will have to address at some to run their cities any more”, to which the only point. But even within local government there are response is: why were they once and why are they parishes, and as we all know the relationship between in every other country in Europe? Is there something parishes and counties is not often that friendly. County uniquely idiotic about English civic leaders that councillors often have views about parishes. So I they’re incompetent to set a rate? It’s going to be quite think, in a sense, the codification that you’re bloody, because this has been going on for a quarter discussing would have to embrace the “within cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 24 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins
Scotland and Wales” issue as well if it’s to work. I democracy, that might be a useful peg for our agree with Simon. codification steps. Andrew, was it specifically on this? Sir Simon Jenkins: It’s lunacy. In Wales you cannot plant a begonia without getting permission from Q82 Mr Turner: It was, yes. One of our witnesses Caernarfon 50 miles away. It is absolutely absurd, and mentioned the number of electors and there are some this is unique in the history of government worldwide figures here, like France 116 to one and Italy 397 to what has happened in Great Britain. one and UK it says 2,605 to one. Does that include parishes and if not why not? Q81 Chair: It’s rather unusual that, at the European Sir Simon Jenkins: It’s a famous figure that I and level, it seems there are directives on just about everyone, I think, quotes an awful lot. It doesn’t everything but there isn’t any push on the word that include parishes. I think the definition is the number appears in many European documents: “subsidiarity”. of representatives with administrative powers, in other You can be told what sort of cheese is Stilton and words proper councils. what cheese is made three miles away and is not Stilton, and yet effective democratic rights, there Q83 Mr Turner: What is wrong with parish doesn’t seem to be any push from the European level councils? to say we ought to have certain rights given to local Sir Simon Jenkins: Nothing wrong with parish councils and others appropriately to regional levels. councils, except if you compare a parish council’s That concept of subsidiarity is a bit of a dead letter powers with a commune’s powers anywhere else in when it comes to enforcement, it seems. Europe they are not substantive, they really are not Sir Simon Jenkins: I thought it was in the various substantive. So, quite rightly, I didn’t regard a parish treaties and the British Government redacted it. I may councillor as the equivalent of a member of a French be wrong here, but I thought the British Government commune council, which can raise a tax, for instance. had declined to implement whatever it was in the treaties that applied to subsidiarity. Professor Travers: It did sign the European Charter Q84 Fabian Hamilton: Simon, I liked your Marbella of Self-Government, didn’t it, or whatever it was beach description and I think it’s absolutely true, called? because there are very few people who know or would Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes, eventually. identify with Kirklees but they would identify with Professor Travers: But I think, to answer the Huddersfield. So that’s an absolutely true description. question, without wishing to aggravate the cheese You mentioned the city of Leeds a few times. I’m lobby, you might argue that the reason that a Leeds Member of Parliament and a former Leeds Governments have been more relaxed about allowing councillor, and I would dispute that some of the cheese to be regulated than democracy is that the quality of our leaders was poor. In fact, two of them Government do democracy and government and are Members of Parliament and several Leeds city they’re more interested in it and that cheese is safer. councillors became Members of Parliament at one Sir Simon Jenkins: They don’t make cheese. time. But nothing underlines the situation that you’ve Professor Travers: They did once. Lymeswold was a just described more than the fiasco we had with our government cheese; Lymeswold a government Supertram project: £230 million to start three cheese? tramlines in Leeds and yet that was turned down in Sir Simon Jenkins: Lymeswold, Sir Peter Walker’s favour of the ticket hall at King’s Cross St Pancras, cheese, yes. which was deemed to be far more important, which I Professor Travers: But generally they don’t make would dispute of course. But my question is this: can cheese and I think that probably explains why, you have codification of the relationship between although it’s not a good thing, the willingness to central and local government without having a written regulate and to push—you know better than me how constitution? Discuss. this place would react if Europe, however defined, Sir Simon Jenkins: I wasn’t commenting on the were to start to try to regulate local government. I leadership of British cities. I was saying that is the only need to say that to see the kind of convulsive argument used for not giving them power. reaction it would produce in some parts of Parliament. It doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do but I think Q85 Fabian Hamilton: What does it say about our it’s easier to deal with cheese than with democracy in MPs then? that sense. Sir Simon Jenkins: Okay, fair enough. Sorry, a Sir Simon Jenkins: The British Government would written constitution and codification are to my mind be more likely to give the Falklands to the one and the same thing. Codification is the writing Argentinians than to give Leeds back to the people of down of powers, supposedly to bind a future Leeds. It’s totally embedded here. Parliament. You can’t bind a future Parliament but you Chair: I think it might be useful to dig out the sort of pretend you do with the Parliament Act, and references on what was and what wasn’t derogated, in so on. Those of us who feel very strongly on this terms of subsidiarity. I think that might prove quite subject realise that unless you do effectively have a helpful because, again, if we’re feeling towards Magna Carta, or a Statute of Westminster, you’re not codification we have the European local government going to make any progress at all because there will thing and we have the concordat but if there’s always be an election in the offing and someone will something else out there that we could get a fix on, always say, “I intend to cap local rates”. which is commonplace in every other Western Fabian Hamilton: That’s Andrew’s point. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 25
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins
Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes, absolutely. I now am a total Sir Simon Jenkins: I think it’s “the” question. If you convert to a written constitution, which includes the look at the discussions in Scotland surrounding the codification of powers to subsidiary democracies. new financing of the Scottish Executive, the Hughes Hallett minority report on the Calman inquiry, which Q86 Fabian Hamilton: In doing that, and we’ve I think is a deeply interesting report, is basically going already mentioned whether that codification should down your route, it’s shorthand for all these things: start where we are at the moment or whether it should it’s the Basque option. The Basque option is basically start from a clean sheet where local government raises Scotland is on its own: it raises its money; it spends 100% of its local revenue. As Professor Stewart said its money. It doesn’t really matter if Scottish schools last week, I believe, in giving evidence here, you can are worse than English schools. That’s Scotland’s have true local government—I don’t know, Professor decision, but there has to be a top slice for common Travers, whether you agree with this—when your UK services: defence and foreign policy. Under that local authorities raise 100% of their local revenue, in proposal you just allocate the VAT. So you take an other words a complete devolution from this place and absolutely simple tax, which you pay to London. from Whitehall. Is that possible in our system? I think that’s not acceptable in England; that will not Professor Travers: It’s possible for some authorities. wash in England. You have to find more sophisticated The way our system has evolved—and this all goes ways of doing it, of which equalisation is one of the back to the Webbs, and Sidney Webb’s work on big issues. But for goodness sake, every other country equalisation and so on, guaranteeing local services— in Europe handles this. One of the arguments for lots we’ve evolved possibly the most sophisticated and of different taxes locally, which I feel strongly about, is that you can start playing with them. You can top indeed complex equalisation system on the planet, and slice an income tax, so use income tax as a rate I think that is very, very, very embedded. I think there equalisation mechanism as they do in Sweden. It’s not are very few councillors or MPs in any party who rocket science, to use a cliché. It’s all doable but honestly believe we couldn’t do without it. Indeed, there’s a kind of complete wall against doing anything most countries have elements of it, in fairness, at the moment. although not quite on the sort of level of complexity that we’ve ended up with. So long as you have Q87 Fabian Hamilton: But in New York, for equalisation grants it is almost impossible. It is example, as I understand it, doesn’t New York City mathematically conceivable you could come up with take a different purchase tax to New York State, and a system that got you into a world where it appeared obviously New York State is different from all the that authorities were 100% self-dependent, raising surrounding states? It’s not a problem with them. Why their own money, but in the end they would have to should it be a problem here? be equalised in some way. Of course, for many Sir Simon Jenkins: Mention that to the Treasury and authorities, and it would almost certainly be true of they say, “Oh, people are going to be moving Leeds or the Leeds city region, they would be able to backwards and forwards across boundaries buying raise all the money they need to fund their local cigarettes”. Well, they don’t. services from council tax and business rate but they Fabian Hamilton: No, they don’t. don’t get the business rate. So, for some places it Sir Simon Jenkins: The refusal to look overseas for would be possible. Clearly in some places, particularly examples on this subject is pathological. in London, they get more than 100% from those sources. Q88 Chair: Just to pick up Tony on a very minor Then you’re into an issue of whether you could have detail. Obviously, when we’re talking about an automatic equalisation arrangement—a visible and equalisation and help from the centre, the centre is transparent one—that left some places in the position drawing that money from the localities anyway in that they could indeed fund themselves. I expect income tax and the rest of it. So it’s possible to have Nottingham would probably be in that position, and exactly the same equalisation that we have now, but Leicester as well, conceivably, and possibly the Isle instead of it being based in the Department of of Wight even, but there would be places where it Environment, or whatever, it could be based with a wouldn’t work because they would need central collective of local authorities. Precisely the same support. Now, could you do that differently than people, precisely the same measures, but it would be through a complicated grant system? Yes, you could. outside of central government and so the equalisations You could do it through a more transparent inter-area would be carrying on just as now but within the local transfer arrangement and that would mean that some government framework rather than— places could become, in effect, dependent purely on Sir Simon Jenkins: Audit commissions. their own local tax resources. Perhaps many could. Professor Travers: There’s no doubt it could be You would have to investigate it in more detail. handled by an independent agency or a local So it would be possible to get to a point where a government-controlled agency within rules set by significant minority, possibly more, of authorities Parliament; of course it could. But you’re absolutely could raise all the money they needed from council right, for many parts of England—if you put it this tax and business rate to fund their existing local way—the total amount of the taxes paid by the city or spending, particularly now education has gone. So it county will be equivalent to the amount the could be done. Question: will the Government’s Government spend on them. The only thing that is review of local government finance look at that? I happening is all the money is going up to the Treasury don’t know. and distributing power round Whitehall so that those cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 26 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins people make the decisions about how the money is about the prospect for any real change. I just spent in Epping Forest, not people in Epping Forest. wondered if you think there are ways in which that It is precisely as you described. There would be places culture can be undermined and changed, perhaps to that would need support. In Germany, as I understand pave the way for a code? it, it’s done by a visible interregional transfer system Sir Simon Jenkins: Well, there was the Battle of and everybody understands it and indeed signs up to Lewes; there was Marston Moor; there was Edgehill. it within the terms of the constitution. So, these things There are ways of doing it. can be codified; even equalisation can be codified in a constitutional arrangement. Q92 Sir Peter Soulsby: It’s something as dramatic as that, is it? Q89 Chair: If it is the wish of the central government Sir Simon Jenkins: Short of riots in the streets, I’ve to pursue a particular policy, as in the United States, given up. I really have. I think— for example, in addition there can then be federal Chair: Just as we’re getting started, you’re giving grants, for example for the Head Start programme. It’s up, Simon. perfectly possible for a political decision to be made Sir Simon Jenkins: France is very interesting, by central government that they will supplement; not because in France it did require basically a revolt of that they will replace local government but they will the cities. In America it required Reagan; it may supplement programmes that are already being require the Tea Party. Whatever it is, in my view it’s undertaken by lower tiers of government, and Head abundantly clear, with great respect, it will not emerge Start is just one example. So, it’s not you are forever from the process we’re engaged in now. It won’t ruling out central government assistance on particular happen. things that are of very great political import to them. Professor Travers: And indeed we have such an Q93 Sir Peter Soulsby: So what you’re suggesting arrangement in the United Kingdom today, don’t we? is we need a ground on which to fight a big battle? Because although devolution has handed lawmaking Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes. power—although not yet tax-raising power—to Scotland, the UK Government decide to spend certain Q94 Sir Peter Soulsby: Rather than just describing items of money in Scotland on, say, defence what is desirable? procurement. It will decide that it needs to buy things Sir Simon Jenkins: As Tony said, it has happened. I and will fund them in a particular way outside the studied in some detail the process in 1997 when some general drift of public spending. of us on the Commission for Local Democracy went to see Blair. We argued the case for elected mayors. Q90 Mrs Laing: Very much on that one. Is it not the We argued the case for powers of general competence case that Scotland does have tax varying powers of and so on. Tony Blair bought it. He said, “I think 3% but has not used them, and do you have a theory it’s a great idea. It will help me smash local Labour about why that happens? The Chairman mentioned parties”—was the phrase he used—and I remember giving freedom to people who don’t want it. Scotland saying, “It won’t happen unless you put it in the wanted freedom and has freedom but doesn’t use the manifesto”. He put it in the manifesto. He did it, tax varying powers. devolution, the lot, in year one. I remember him Sir Simon Jenkins: As you will be aware, Scotland saying some time after that, “If I hadn’t done it in is about to have 10p in the pound tax varying powers. year one I’d have lost” because the system was They haven’t used the 3p in the pound; why they beginning to move. The Treasury, the whole system should use the 10p in the pound, goodness only was moving against it. knows. Not only that, but the subvention is going to The way you do it is you knobble an opposition, you be cut by the yield. It beggars belief. I think the force it into the manifesto and then you shame them concentration on money is right but—just coming to into doing at least some of it, and that’s the nearest to the point that the Chairman raised about the role of bloody revolution I’ve come to. central government in local service delivery—it’s no Professor Travers: I’m just a little more optimistic surprise to anyone who has studied this subject that than that, in the sense that we did have the Scotland every single time central government takes an Act, the Wales Act, and Northern Ireland has gone initiative of that sort the overhead is two, three, four through something similar. I think it’s not times what it is when local government does it, and unimaginable that there could be a sort of “England in America it’s 10 times. America is a bad example Act” that sought in a once and for all way to create a of central initiatives for local service delivery. constitutional devolution settlement within England for local government, possibly subjecting it to a Q91 Sir Peter Soulsby: You describe what sound referendum, which would give it the quasi like pretty overwhelming cultural barriers to constitutional status that the Scotland and Wales codification, a codified settlement: the lack of trust of arrangements have given to Wales and to Scotland. In the centre for the local; the pressure on the centre to the end, as we all know in this Parliament, it could all move against the postcode lottery syndrome and to be uprooted by a vote tomorrow and the whole thing seek to smooth out local differences in services. repealed and everything run from London again. But We’ve seen an example of it again this morning when it’s not very likely to happen given the constitutional we’ve been looking at NHS outcomes. Given what locks and guarantees and the way it was done. you’ve described, and I think we’re aware of, it’s not I do think such a thing could be done for England. surprising, Simon, that you are particularly gloomy The present Government are being incredibly radical cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 27
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins in many ways; one of the most radical Governments people think. So, I see the point that, in logic and I’ve seen possibly ever. So would the idea of rationality, you’ve re-boundaried to create nice codifying and setting a new constitutional relationship boundaries that went up to the edge of the urban area, between central and local government be any more but then somebody, urban geographers, would say, radical than some of the other things the present “Ah, but it’s bigger than that, it’s the travel to work Government are doing? I don’t think so. So, I don’t area. It’s not just this, it’s that”. Then you’re, “Well, think it’s unimaginable and it has happened within all yes, but it’s not that it’s the city region; it’s not that our living memories for Scotland and for Wales. it’s the region”, and we’re back where Mr Turner took Sir Simon Jenkins: I totally agree. There’s a real us earlier on. opportunity and it could have happened, and the date So, I think that that would be taking on too many for it happening was between May 2010 and battles at once. I think codification would beg some September 2010 and we’ve missed it. of these issues: do we stick with these boundaries or Chair: Sir Peter, have you finished? go for something else? It would beg those, because Sir Peter Soulsby: Yes. structures and the endless reorganisation of structure has weakened local government as well. But I think Q95 Stephen Williams: We’ve talked about the that this is an argument for small “c” conservatism in finance of local government and to some extent the the end. If you’re going to go for codification, taking powers, and I just wonder about the model of local on reorganisation as well as codification would government that we have in this country, because probably be rather too many fronts to be fighting on, Tony mentioned city regions, which provoked me to is my sense. think about Bristol as with Leeds. I was an Avon Sir Simon Jenkins: You’ve heard of the great councillor, a Bristol councillor. I’m now an MP, so Orwellian city called SELNEC. It emerged from the I’ve been elected to every level it’s possible to be Peter Walker reorganisation; absolutely ridiculous. elected. In Bristol we had our charter in 1373 because Only a genuinely Orwellian central government would we gave Edward III some money. The boundary was have thought of a city called SELNEC: South East altered in 1835 and then last altered in 1918, whereas Lancashire, North East Cheshire. It’s unbelievable. Bristol has changed beyond all recognition since This is the mind with which you’re contending at the 1918. If you’re going to codify local government’s moment and, as you say, it’s the mind of the Crown. powers and finance, do you not have to settle on a model, including the geographical units as well? Q96 Chair: If I may, Stephen, before you continue, Sir Simon Jenkins: I think you do. One of the many if local government has a life and independence of tragedies of this whole debate is we had quite a good its own, presumably it will be empowered to discuss model in the middle of the 20th century. I think when sensibly with its neighbours if it wants to make a Redcliffe-Maud tried to tear up the map of Britain, it change. That is for mature adult local government to didn’t need tearing up; it really didn’t. The model of decide. Also, presumably if they’re capable of raising county boroughs, counties and municipal districts was their revenue, running their own area, presumably a good model. It always seemed to me to be robust. It they’re capable of being allowed to decide their own reflected people’s sense of local identity. There was electoral system or whether they want a mayor or not. no need to do it. But, of course, as with all This isn’t a sort of halfway house. I’m assuming the centralisations, they’re never permanent. You’re Government in America, France and Germany can’t always restlessly trying to change it and we’ve had, say to local government units, “Yes, you have some what, two local government Bills a year ever since, independence but only so far as we approve on certain more or less. issues”. We are looking at a very different culture On boundaries, imagine deciding to change the here, aren’t we? boundaries of the American states. New Jersey is a bit Sir Simon Jenkins: If you look at America, American too small, why don’t we merge it with New York? mayoralties are all different. There are strong mayors, Why don’t we put Delaware in with the—these things weak mayors; different models of mayoralty. If you are inconceivable and they’re not really democratic. ask why, you get a fascinating answer, which is that They’re about some fidgety central government desire it tended to depend on whether the governor in the to do something a bit better here. It just goes on and colonial days was for or against the king. It’s as on and on. historical as that. In Germany, different control areas Professor Travers: Certainly, codification would beg in Germany after the war imposed their own local this question again. Like lots of things, if you start to government system. So you’ve got strong mayors in write things down you beg questions: should Bristol the American sector. In the British sector you’ve got embrace more of its suburbs, I suspect; should county councils. As Tony said, these are facets of Norwich? Norwich is another under-boundaried city. history you don’t want to go into because so many I think the question then is: is the vast battle over other things are so much more important than doing that worth fighting at the same time? You end tinkering with this. up fighting two huge battles because, as you know, Professor Travers: Going back to Mr Williams’ many of the people who live just over the boundary question about the Bristol boundary and, indeed, feel they’ve rejected the city and all the ills of city picking up Simon’s point, I think one of the other life and want to go and live there, precisely as a issues codification would inevitably have to pick up statement that they’re no longer in the wicked city. is the issue of—very big in America—petitioning, Now, aim off for whether that’s a logical or sensible whether it would be possible to create a local or, indeed, morally just way of thinking; that’s how referendum on whether part of the Bristol or Leicester cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 28 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins suburbs should be brought into the city and, indeed, of Leeds, which is very strange. Pudsey, where I live, once you have petitioning of that kind how far it which is between Leeds and Bradford, bitterly would go. I do think you’d have to pick up that kind resented in 1974 being taken into the new Leeds of question in a codification because otherwise Metropolitan District when the county borough everything would be frozen forever. So the question boundaries expanded. Anybody over about 55—where of how you change it in a localist way probably would does that put me, because I am 55—actually regards take one down the route of local petitions or local themselves as a citizen of Pudsey, not of Leeds. So referenda on: what do we do about this particular that localism pervades, and yet being a part of Leeds suburb that’s thinking it should or should not come City Council has made a huge difference to that tiny into the city? It’s a localist way of dealing with it. little town, which couldn’t be self-governing, it’s simply not big enough. I just wonder what your view Q97 Stephen Williams: I think plebiscites, is, how you would treat those areas like Wetherby. Chairman, were usually used after certain wars to Harrogate is too big, but Wetherby, Pudsey, these decide ethnic composition, although I doubt that small little towns that were once independent and are people are ethnically the same in greater Bristol. now part of larger districts, presumably like Bristol, I was going to follow on from what you were asking, like Leicester, like Nottingham, that actually still Chairman, about general power of competence. Do crave that self-government and those town mayors. you think it would be a good state of affairs if, for the Sir Simon Jenkins: Well, two things: one is I don’t sake of argument, Bristol decided it was going to elect necessarily think that the quality of services or the its councillors by single transferable vote, whereas level of the rates is the sole determinant of one’s local Devon decided it was going to stick with first past the identity. Slovakia wouldn’t have gone independent if post and Cornwall decided it was going to have AV? that was the case. Because at the moment they decide whether to elect Fabian Hamilton: True. in thirds, 50/50 or without elections, so that sort of Sir Simon Jenkins: Secondly, there’s no settlement so precedent already exists. small it can’t be self-governing. If I may say so, that Professor Travers: Personally, I don’t think there’s old fallacy has been the root of so much of the trouble any constitutional better or worse way of looking at we’ve had, endlessly saying we have to reorganise this it. I don’t see why not. If I can give an example of because it’s too small to be viable. Anything is viable. why I think allowing local freedoms to make There is a fascinating debate in Scandinavia with the decisions of this kind probably ought to be passed, in free commune experiments. The free communes were order to allow these decisions to be made locally— produced on the back of a passionate movement—you and I probably used this example when I came to can now call it “the Tea Party movement”—to allow speak to some of the members of the Committee local, basically more prosperous communes to opt out before—it’s the smoking ban. Had the smoking ban of the welfare state. They don’t get any expenditure. not been introduced all in one go in England in 2007, They don’t pay any taxes. They have to look after but had permissive legislation been passed in 1997 themselves. It caught on. There are thousands of them, saying, “Councils are free to impose a smoking ban but it hasn’t really taken off. It caught on but it hasn’t when they wish”, then I would guess in 1997 about taken off. The reason is the resistance to it is so great, half of them would have done it and half of them but there’s a good tension. The option is there for a wouldn’t. Then we’d have found out early on whether local community to vote itself. The one power they it worked or not, and then we’d have seen some all wanted to have repatriated to their village or town moving one way, some the other, experimentation. It was the clinic. They wanted to run their own health would all have been tested. But the truth is that the service, and they just didn’t trust the state in that benefits of the smoking ban, if that’s what you believe central function of healthcare. It’s ironic; it’s the one happened, would have been tested out in an thing in Britain that’s the most nationalised. experimental way. I don’t see why we can’t do that Professor Travers: I do think that this discussion begs with other public health and other democratic facets, the question: were local government to be frankly. re-empowered and given a guaranteed capacity to tax, and so on, it would then possibly—and this would Q98 Mr Turner: The same is true, I take it, of the have to be encouraged, I guess—make it possible to option to move out of Bristol if you are particularly envisage a more self-confident version of town and nice— city government thinking about—let’s not use the Professor Travers: I think it has to be symmetrical. word “parish”—arrondissements within Leeds. Let’s Yes. I’m afraid it would have to be symmetrical. use some word that aggrandises the concept. I’m not Stephen Williams: Clifton would go to Somerset. sure whether Pudsey would want to be an arrondissement of Leeds, but you’ll know that better Q99 Fabian Hamilton: We had a very good example than me. But you can see the point. I think why stop? of this in the 1980s in Leeds because the good people Leeds is 700,000 to 750,000 people. It’s a very big of Wetherby decided that they didn’t want to be in place. Why not arrondissements? If the Leeds City Leeds, because they’re quite different from the people Council felt self-confident that it was guaranteed its in Leeds, they wanted to be back in North Yorkshire. powers in the tax-raising capacity, it could make its However, a survey done by Leeds City Council of the own decisions about its own trams, raise its own population of Wetherby in the mid-1980s discovered bonds, all of these things, then with luck some of the that the services were so much better in Leeds and the cities would think, “Birmingham, 1 million people, rates were actually lower, so they opted to stay as part perhaps a bit too big to do everything at this scale. Do cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 29
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins we need community boards or arrondissements?” or whose name they know locally. So few people can whatever it is. name someone locally to whom they can turn if Fabian Hamilton: Area committees. they’re in trouble. We’ve ripped it out. Professor Travers: Whatever, however it’s done. Sir Simon Jenkins: Can I just say, this argument has Q101 Stephen Williams: That isn’t their local been liberated, or should have been liberated, by councillor? competitive sourcing, tendering and privatisation. I Sir Simon Jenkins: It might be, but in my experience can remember back in the Redcliffe-Maud days, the local councillors tend to say, “Awfully sorry, someone put together the concept that the most there’s nothing I can really do”. The authority is so purposed tier of local government had to be subject to distant, or it’s the cuts. what was called “the clarinet test”. It’s like the Stephen Williams: Go and see your MP. Marbella test. The clarinet test was: can it afford a Professor Travers: To come back to a point that was clarinet organiser in its school service? So you end up discussed earlier, one of the reasons why Members of very quickly with a 1 million population for a local Parliament have ended up with this authority unit. It didn’t occur to anybody to say, “We councillor-come-citizens advice role is that, at some could hire one from the next door authority”. “We level, because of centralisation, a lot of the decisions have to have our own clarinet organiser.” It was as genuinely are made in Whitehall. You will know absurd a discussion as that and it still dominates this better than we do that a lot of your casework will be debate. forwarding a letter from a constituent to a civil servant Professor Travers: Of course, this is why it is French in Whitehall who is the person who can give you the companies that have been so successful in cleaning definitive answer to the complex benefit question. In our streets, because the French Veolia, and other a sense, centralisation has produced that as well, and companies, got their economies of scale in France; the the councillor has no chance. The councillor wouldn’t communes gained economies of scale by contracting be responded to, with respect, whereas you will. You services out to big companies. It’s those companies will always get a response from a department of state. that have been able to move into the British market Stephen Williams: Eventually. and end up winning so many contracts. Chair: My most popular annotation on my letters is, Chair: I’m going to ask Stephen to ask a question, “Refer to the Minister for comment before replying”. then I’ll come to Sheila, but I will again kick off that seed of the steps to codification, whether it may never Q102 Sheila Gilmore: I think the money thing is happen. Just for the sake of helping us with our hugely important at all levels. Having been on a Report, I’d like to pick your brains on that, but council that endlessly talked about devolving power firstly, Stephen. downwards and set up a structure, but then in the last few years has failed to give it the money so the Q100 Stephen Williams: First of all, just as an aside, structure just is a talk shop, so obviously money is Bristol has devolved power down to neighbourhood important. But there’s also a bit of a self-denying committees—rather than arrondissements—we call ordinance here and maybe codification would help, them, with real money and real power. But I was because I think part of the overlap is legislatures going to pick up on what Simon was saying about no wanting to do all these things. That happens in the unit is too small and just to challenge that. Would Scottish Parliament just as much as it happens with you really say that not clarinet organisers but child Westminster. They want to have a policy on protection, for instance, should be dealt with by a very education; they want to improve education. Most of it small council? There must be some areas of personal is logical stuff: we want to drive up standards; we safety where you cannot have such a small unit that a job could be competently done, otherwise you might want to reduce inequalities, we want to do all these have people checking up on their neighbours. things. So they see it as part of their remit and the money kind of follows that along. Presumably if we Sir Simon Jenkins: Well, I think personal safety, like policing, is one of the most local of all public want to change that, we have to change the things that administration activities. I know both in my part of people do and then stick to it. So, for example, for London and in Wales one of the things that’s Westminster that would substantially change the de-civilised—if I can use the proper sense of the word issues that we would take a role in. Do you think “civilised”—the community, is the disappearance of that’s something that is feasible? local figures of semi-authority: the local policeman, Sir Simon Jenkins: I’m entirely in favour of the local doctor, the local head teacher, primary school codification; I just don’t think it’s going to happen. If teacher. These functions have just gone and they’ve you want me to say would I be in favour of a written been replaced by a policeman in a car. You can see it, constitution? Yes, yes, yes. Write it down. Let’s get it you can see the way in which whenever something in the book. goes wrong in the community, a family goes bad or it might be a child protection issue, someone telephones Q103 Sheila Gilmore: Do you think it is a kind of the police and—sometimes apart from a sainted self-denying ordinance, in the sense that people would parson of some sort—there’s nobody locally who’s have to give something up, not just the money? there to act in a position of semi-authority. I just think Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes. that the issue is not the perfect size of a local Professor Travers: In Westminster? authority; it’s the way in which the people in that Sheila Gilmore: Yes. community see what they need. They need someone Sir Simon Jenkins: Or the Scottish Parliament. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 30 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins
Professor Travers: Well, in Westminster there’s no even the Scottish powers, the original Scottish powers, doubt that codification that made clearer what local and say in a constitutional codified settlement for government was there to do would leave Parliament England local authorities in England would be free to discussing fewer things, and that has happened. You raise up to a 3p income tax or cut down 3p. There are know better than me that Scottish and Welsh enough local authorities, primary major local devolutions worked in that way. Most Scottish issues authorities: counties, unitaries, metropolitan districts are not now discussed on the floor of the House of and London boroughs in England. Undoubtedly, some Commons here. Some are, but most aren’t. of them would do it. There’s no question. Some would Personally—and this is not my own idea, I picked this go up, some would go down. It would produce a huge up from a Member of Parliament some years ago— debate where it happened. Even a half pence change one simple way of shifting this balance would be, of in the tax rate, there’d be economists saying, “It’s course, for the Speaker of the House of Commons to going to produce incentives, everybody will move deem some matters that were local to be out of order here, they’ll move out of there”; then a city would to be discussed in the House of Commons. That would say, “We’re going to be the low tax city”. It could be be a very cheap and cheerful way, actually quite Leeds, could be Manchester, “We’re going to be the interesting way, of ensuring power shifted back low tax city of the North”. It would produce a debate. local-wards, although that’s probably a bit too easy. It would change turnouts in local elections because they’d be about different income tax levels. So I do Q104 Sheila Gilmore: You could only do that if the think if codification could include the idea of local executive also has a self-denying ordinance in a sense, tax-varying powers, particularly affecting income tax, because if you still have Ministers and civil servants there would be more likelihood of change than there doing these things, we need to be able to deal with was in Scotland. The Scottish Government proved them. I’m just interested in the money issue because curiously conservative, dare I say it, in this regard I think you both raised the question of why in and I doubt every local council in England would be Scotland, when we have a tax-varying power, it hasn’t so conservative. been used, so is this back to: people don’t really want it? I think probably it’s for practical reasons. One is Q105 Chair: Just to take you back to the Speaker, we probably haven’t needed to for the last 10 years the Speaker, of course, rules out of order—and I’ve because money has actually been relatively—you been a victim of this—questions to the Secretary of always want to do more—but has been relatively State for Northern Ireland on child welfare matters, plentiful, so in a sense it’s not been the issue, and for example, or on Scotland and other matters. But he we do not have a political party in Scotland of any can do that because there is a very clear description description, I have to say, that seems to take a of what those powers are. So, presumably, he couldn’t tax-reducing view of the world. So, the idea of do it on a whim, he would have to refer to, “Actually, varying downwards hasn’t actually come up. But I local government in statute has responsibilities for that think it’s partly because that isn’t the real power in and that is not the responsibility of the Secretary of perhaps the Calman proposal, because they not only State for Environment or Local Government or any give a 10p in the pound tax-varying power but by other Secretary of State. Indeed, we will not allow the taking away money you wouldn’t have much choice question to be tabled in the first place and I will not but to use your power, unless you take it right down. allow an oral question”, rather like when he stops Whereas this was a bit tokenistic, looking back on that people at Prime Minister’s Questions asking about now. Although we argued about it and we all made party political things that are not the responsibility of this great fight for tax-varying powers, actually it’s the Prime Minister. So, having the founding statute not. there for him to refer to has to be the first port of So I think it could be very different, and obviously call, then. the Basque model would be real power. Interestingly, Professor Travers: I know this is not the right way I think that would change the nature of the Scottish round for Select Committee hearings, but can I ask Parliament in a way that hasn’t happened, because one the Members of the Committee a question? Can you of the criticisms in Scotland is that it behaves— think of examples where under the current system the irresponsibly is wrong but it feels able to distribute Speaker has ever ruled out of order a question on a the goodies without having to really think about it. local matter? Sir Simon Jenkins: Well, I regard the Basque model Chair: I can’t because it is perfectly legitimate to ask as basically honouring the spirit of 1707, which the on matters for which funding is nominally, at least, Scottish Parliament has not yet honoured. It’s granted by the Westminster Parliament and, therefore, basically, if anything, pre-1707. It’s basically saying, there is this line of account through Ministers. Now, “Look, Scotland is a proper country”. It feels like one, do Ministers ever answer those questions? That’s a it behaves like one, it thinks of itself as one. It’s just whole other debate. Simon. that there’s one incubus, which is the Treasury, and Sir Simon Jenkins: There is a parallel example, just free it from that incubus. There are many ways of which is nationalised industries and public doing it, but Calman doesn’t do it; the Basque does. corporations. Under the Morrisonian arm’s length Professor Travers: At the moment, the Scottish rules, these bodies were formally—it’s a bit like the Government have no incentive to build up its own police in operational matters—they were formally local tax base. That is a serious weakness in the freed from ministerial oversight for their operations. devolution settlement. Certainly, in the Basque model The history of arm’s length in all areas is absolutely it definitely would. But actually, if we were to take fascinating because it’s a wonderful test bed for the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 31
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins psychology of centralism. But it was very interesting produces the most tussles between the parish, the that when the British Railways Board was set up and district and the county even today. then the British Railways Board ran the railways, the Minister would only answer questions about the Q108 Sheila Gilmore: Is it partly because it’s financing of the British Railways Board. He would quasi-judicial? never answer questions about train times for very, Chair: Yes, I think that’s part of the answer. There very good reasons. The last thing he wanted to do was are some quasi-judicial functions as well. to be blamed for the train being late. Since Can I draw you back to codification now as we come privatisation it’s been fascinating. to the last 20 minutes or so? If we are reporting that This morning I heard on the radio the Secretary of we think some codification is appropriate, presumably, State answering a question about overcrowding on a if the Government were to take our Report seriously, train, and he thought it his responsibility to reply. In there would be some discussion between the relevant other words, the magnetism of potency is absolutely parties, that is, central government and local relentless. Even when you supposedly privatise an government. Might that be built upon the concordat industry, even when you’ve had the whole history of or some of the European documentation? Where Morrisonian arm’s length, still the fact of the matter would that process begin? Whether it’s going to result is they cannot stop meddling and taking responsibility in a big bang or a statute or salami guidance, how for overcrowding on trains, thank goodness. would you see that process kicking off? Professor Travers: I think the concordat, which is the Q106 Mr Turner: Yes, but that’s because, in fact, it concordat between central and local government hasn’t been denationalised, or rather it’s been which was signed—I don’t know, was it two years renationalised since 1997. ago, it was some time ago—I think the problem with Sir Simon Jenkins: No, it’s been reincorporated into that as a starting point is that, dare I say it, everybody central government. It hasn’t even been renationalised signed up to it. Because everybody signed up to it, it in the Morrisonian sense. was an expression of something that all the politicians Mr Turner: Yes, I agree, but they are coming to the involved, central and local, thought they would live Government asking for money and that is why— with and, therefore, didn’t challenge them enough, in Professor Travers: Parastatal companies. terms of a real impact on the way they behaved and Chair: I think that obviously there will be an made their decisions. It’s not to say there weren’t expectation that people will express opinions, things in it that would help, but I think in terms of politicians will express opinions. I think that’s slightly how one might move forward from where we are it different from being accountable and responsible on might be necessary to find a way of drafting at least the floor, which Ministers currently are, for the road part of what this thing might be like, to give a sense building programme in my city, or the contractual of if not the whole of an England Devolution Bill but arrangements around collecting waste in Leeds, or at least the first part of it. Perhaps some company of whatever, it ultimately comes back because the purse lawyers with an interest in this kind of thing could be strings come straight back to Whitehall. convinced to do some pro bono work for you in order to produce at least part of the England Devolution Q107 Mr Turner: One function doesn’t seem to have Bill. I think unless it’s something written down and been swallowed up up here but remains local. As far we can begin to argue about it as a real thing, it’s as I am asking questions the same is true, I wouldn’t always going to be a bit abstract. ask questions about planning. Now, why is it that I think you would find there would be people willing planning—apart from how it is so bloody to contribute to that and I think it would be a noble complicated—what is preventing us asking those cause, but you’d need lawyers to make sure—you questions up here and what is preventing Ministers might even want to produce a draft part of a Bill— swallowing it up? that it felt like the real thing. That would be my kind Sir Simon Jenkins: It’s so bloody complicated; you of starting point. You’ll be more pessimistic, won’t gave your own answer. I think it’s intolerable. you? Planning is a fascinating subject, to me anyway. It’s Sir Simon Jenkins: You’d certainly get an academic fascinating because it doesn’t involve money directly. to write it, Tony. It doesn’t involve the expenditure of money by the Professor Travers: I was thinking of lawyers; pro state. It involves huge local interests and it goes back bono work from our dear friends, the lawyers. to the Bible, it’s the classic public sector function: to Sir Simon Jenkins: I am very much in favour of the order the manner in which land is allocated for big bang theory because I’ve written about it, but I different purposes and to different people. It always think you’re right to fasten on England. I think that seemed to me to be the quintessential local there is a kind of yearning for something to do with government power. To watch the churning at the England now to which this Parliament has not been moment over whether “communities” should be able to find a response, so I think that’s a good idea. allowed to build housing estates in fields outside I feel the last 20 years that particular debate has been villages, this power is supposedly going to be completely distracted by regionalism. Regionalism is delegated to them under next week’s Act. I just a top-down or—I’ll repeat—Orwellian invention, the wonder what’s going to really happen. But you are south east Oceania or whatever it’s called. It has been right it is the essential local government function. It meaningless, it hasn’t worked and no one has is interesting because it’s one of the things that responded to it. It’s a device of central government. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 32 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins
In a sense, having disposed of regionalism, you then Q110 Chair: But, as we all know, referenda come to our best beloved counties, and I think it notoriously become referenda on other issues than the would be very interesting to codify a new settlement one in front of the public at that given moment. I’m between the Westminster Parliament and county looking at Simon and his view that the only way a government and city government—these two great centralised society decentralises is by the centre entities of the geography of England—in which you saying, “We’re going to decentralise”. just do say, “It is now time to move on. We want to Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes, or bloody revolution. find powers that are appropriate to this sort of unit of Chair: That would be option three. local government and we think they’d look something Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes, option three. Don’t forget like this”. the curious potency yesterday in the street. But I think, Professor Travers: Another possibility, Chairman, picking up on Tony’s point about—because it is a might be not to have a pilot but to try a real much debated topic—what is a constitutional statute? experiment. I don’t know if this would fail rules of There’s no such thing. Everything can be. The normal hybridity, but to try because the thing that clearly pattern now is it has to be agreed by everybody in spooks Governments of all parties is the sense that if Parliament, all parties, or it has to be backed by a they were to allow a big city, or a county, freedom that referendum. In some sense or another there has to be the whole thing would collapse and disaster would set a consensus surrounding it. The Parliament Acts were in and ruination. The fact that there is historical bitterly fought, but once they were passed they evidence that municipalities competed standards curiously entered into the kind of constitution of upwards in the 19th century. We’ve seen—going back Britain. The reason why I’m for big bang is I think to the tax thing—Scotland didn’t use the tax powers that you have to say to the public, “This is a it was given. It was not reckless. We’ve seen with the completely new dispensation. We’re not just tinkering business rate supplement introduced in England only with the Rate Support Grant. We’re actually proposing London has used it, no other authority has chosen to what David Cameron said he would in opposition, use it. We live in an era where politicians are afraid which is a new deal between the centre and locality, of pushing up taxes, so it’s no longer the case that and it’s going to look like this”. I think otherwise be giving local or national governments greater freedom radical. that they’ll all recklessly put up their taxes. We’re in a completely different world and, if anything, they’d Q111 Tristram Hunt: You don’t think the moment is start to compete downwards. They’d compete lost? The six months between May and September. downwards, not upwards, because they’d think that Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes, September has gone, hasn’t was the way to get more jobs. You can see this in the it? September has gone. debate about the future of poor Ireland. In the end, it’s all about holding taxes down, particularly for Q112 Chair: Well, we started our review and just got competitive purposes. Why would that be different? It under the wire, I think. One other thing, looking at wouldn’t be different in England. So I do think it’s how we would make this stick, I raised this with the not hybrid in the terms of legislation. Perhaps this two professors last week. The Parliament Act itself. could be tried in one county, one city and one unitary, As you will know, the Parliament Act allows the or whatever it is, to see if it worked, to see if the skies Second Chamber to intervene in only one area and to really do fall in. veto in only one area the view of the House of Commons and the Government, and that is the Q109 Chair: Going along either or possibly both of extension of the length of time a parliament may sit. those tracks, a pilot or an agreement, which is the It has an absolute right to refuse to entertain that, basis of codification, presumably you would feel that which is a great constitutional safeguard. That’s point were we to recommend that be put in statute that that A. Should there be a point B in the 1911 Parliament would be one way of at least giving it a chance of Act as amended, to say that the Second Chamber may being embedded, rather than it’s just executive fiat that also intervene if the rights of local government—as we’re going to give this a try? defined wherever—themselves are under threat from Professor Travers: Yes. I do think—and Simon a majority in the First Chamber or the Government of referred to these earlier—we do have laws that are the day? That is short of a written constitution but in effect constitutional. We don’t call them a written nonetheless is another safeguard. constitution, but the Parliament Act is a good example Sir Simon Jenkins: I think I’m right in saying that’s of a law that is in effect a part of a constitution, in the Lisbon Treaty, which we’ve signed, that Europe although it’s not called that. I think, generally, we can intervene if a national parliament offends the change those kinds of pieces of legislation with rights of subsidiary bodies. But anyway, I’m entirely greater care than we change other forms of legislation. in favour of what you’re suggesting. So I do think it would be possible to imagine passing Professor Travers: I agree. I think I’m right in saying legislation that was more constitutional for England that the Communities and Local Government along the lines of delineating the central/local Committee in its Report in the previous Parliament relationship, and I would consider issues such as and session recommended a joint committee of the backing it up with a referendum about whether or not Commons and the Lords to oversee the central/local the public actually wanted it, because the referendum relationship. I think a committee of both Houses that would then give it a degree of gravitas and seriousness was seen to have a constitutional remit to oversee the that worked for Scotland and Wales, made those relationship, possibly to report periodically on that changes almost impossible to unravel again. relationship, would assist in sustaining whatever cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 33
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins codification had then been created, whatever balance have in this country, a savage tax, and it’s parking had been created, yes. fines. It’s a major part of local finance now and it is completely out of hand because it’s the only one that’s Q113 Chair: To go back to where I started, which is: discretionary. They want to increase it to £200, £300 within some form of codified settlement, what would a car. This is penal taxation. Yet they’ve run riot on be possible within that form in respect of local this because it’s the only one they have any sort of government finance? discretion over. It is so much better if you give them Professor Travers: At the very least—and this is at powers of general competence and powers of general the very least—I think the codification to mean freedom to levy taxes. I think it’s very interesting if anything would have to guarantee the unfettered right you follow this debate in places like Germany, they’re to set a local tax, that is, the end of capping; and, arguing about this, too. They’re always saying, “We indeed, not moving to a referendum-based system have to cap the rates. We have to stop people spending instead. At the very least, it would have to be the more”. The pressure on central government to unfettered capacity to set a local tax with the dominate localities is universal; it’s just that they’re presumption that elections would be the way of much better at resisting it. deciding whether or not the councillors were behaving reasonably or not. So I think that would be the very Q115 Chair: Just to push you both a little further, least. But codification could also, and in my view historically local government was able to borrow on should also, include the presumption that local the bond market. It could do so in order to create our governments should raise no less than half of their sewerage systems, our light, our gas, our electricity. income from local taxation. I think that would be Certainly these were the big engines of Victorian another rule to be built in. Mr Hamilton made the England. We forget that, and sometimes we just think point about: should it be 100%? Clearly, in theory it it’s what we know, which is local government as should be, but I think for codification purposes agents at the centre. Would you also think that within building in the idea of at least 50% would be an a settlement, within a codification, that there should important element. be something about the ability of local government Then, thirdly, I think this is a much bigger issue but to trade against its own credit rating, perhaps with a it would have to include the idea of there being more balanced budget provision so that it couldn’t go than one local tax. It’s true that the UK is very berserk, but also with a market discipline of its credit unusual—in Scotland and Wales, as in England—in rating so that local government could borrow against having one local tax. In Scotland now in effect the tax its assets or through partnership making? has been frozen for several years. It’s about to be Sir Simon Jenkins: Every country has this problem. frozen in England, and the reason it gets frozen is that The Public Works Loans Board became, in effect, gilt- the one tax local government has is a very visible tax, edged stock. I think there’s no way of not regulating and also a good tax in that sense, and people notice local borrowing, you have to have some regulatory what they’re paying. There’s absolutely no reason framework for it, but it shouldn’t be nothing. At the why there shouldn’t be another local tax that people moment it’s nothing. I think that to allow some degree were also aware that they were paying in a way of flexibility into borrowing is a good idea, yes. they’re not for most central taxes. So I think those Professor Travers: I think that, at a risk of straying would be the elements of the codification: more than into other parts of political and economic debate, one tax, at least 50% of income, and no capping. there’s no doubt that local authorities in Britain are in a very robust place economically compared with many Q114 Chair: Simon, as I begin to form this Report nation states. British local government has always in my brain, option one, of course, will be big bang, been cautious, never defaults on payments, never but let’s just have a look at option two, which is the defaulted on any payment. Even as of today it does one I’ve asked Tony to comment on. Where would have outstanding debt, of course, but it has very you see that balance on local government finance? significant reserves and investments as well. So, local Would you agree with the points that Tony has made? government is a very safe place for any international Would you go a little further or not so far? investor to put their money, British local government. Sir Simon Jenkins: I agree with what Tony said. You The prudential rules system for controlling capital have a problem if you go above 50% with rate expenditure introduced by the previous Government equalisation. Equalisation is a very important was a huge step forward. It’s a kind of self-regulatory principle of local government finance within a nation system based on common sense, that is, just as we as state. You have to have some equalisation system in individual citizens should only borrow as far as we place. It’s most easily done with local income tax can before we become a credit threat, that’s effectively because it’s considered fairest that way. I don’t know how this system works. So, again, there’s very little whether you want to think about these things when danger that local government would go berserk if it you’re codifying, but these are considerations you were given greater freedoms. Do I think that it would have to take into account. The same with business be better if there were more financial instruments for rates, you have to have some equalisation of doing this and local authorities were willing and able business rates. to use them more? I think the answer to that is yes, The thing I very strongly agree with Tony on is too, and I think to fund local bonds in particular. plurality of taxes. In Catalonia they’ve got about six If you think in the current, literally today’s world of taxes they can play with. I think New York has eight savings and international financial problems, were a taxes they can play with. There is one second tax you city in Britain to be able to issue bonds to rebuild its cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Ev 34 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins infrastructure, local people could buy the bonds and Q119 Stephen Williams: A separate, slightly cheeky get a decent rate of return over time. The issuance of question for Simon, given his profession. Let’s just the bond would put pressure on the city council or the assume that we have big bang localism and local PTA to make this project work properly. This would authorities could do whatever they wished and Bristol be an extremely good solution to at least three had cheap parking, Bath subsidised its theatre tickets problems, but you could go beyond hardware and Weston-super-Mare gave away free deck chairs or infrastructure; no reason why this shouldn’t be done something, would you ban your journalists from using for social projects. So I think allowing local the phrase “postcode lottery”? government greater freedom, effectively, on its capital Sir Simon Jenkins: Yes. The only one I’m in favour account to raise instruments, to fund projects locally, of is banning the phrase “postcode lottery”. I call it providing they’re within the rules of prudence, why “postcode democracy”, okay? not? Q120 Fabian Hamilton: In the late 1980s, Leeds Q116 Chair: Which is basically the situation before City Council cleverly financed a lot of new primary local authority loans were nationalised by the Thatcher Government by the creation of the Public schools, I think, against the wishes of the then Works Loans Board. Government, by going to CIPFA and borrowing Professor Travers: Yes. The Public Works Loans money from them, the Chartered Institute of Public Board has confused all of this by stepping in as a very Finance and Accountancy. That was soon outlawed, I low cost way of lending money to local government. have to say, but we still got the schools. My question Interestingly, it recently put its rates up and it’s less really relates to schools because, Tony, we were attractive than it used to be. But I think there are talking about the ideal of 100% of finance of local inherent benefits of bond finance—after all, government being devolved to the locality. You said municipalities in Britain used to issue bonds all the realistically, and quite rightly, it probably wouldn’t be time to build their sewers and other infrastructure— more than 50%; it should be at least 50%. which would have benefits of its own. Professor Travers: It could be 100%, it’s just I’m Sir Simon Jenkins: For all the reservations everybody saying in the real world I’d put that as the minimum. has about the quality of local government in Britain, and for all the reservations people make about its Q121 Fabian Hamilton: But, surely, the one inappropriateness as being the recipient of devolved obstacle here is education finance? Because when I powers, if central government were run with one half was Chair of the Education Committee in Leeds, I the efficiency—and I have no vested interest in local think two-thirds of our budget was spent on our government—of the average local authority in Britain, 400-odd-plus schools. They weren’t odd schools, but we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now. One of the 400-plus schools. Isn’t that the problem? Because if great biases in public debate is that central you take that out of the equation you’re not left with government is somehow efficient and local very much. If you put that in the equation, then you government is somehow inefficient. That’s a lie. will get substantial postcode differences between education provision unless you actually guarantee by Q117 Stephen Williams: Two separate questions, statute what local authorities must give to their one for Tony, one for Simon. On the bond issue area, schools, in which case why bother to devolve the is there any evidence that you are aware of that there finance? are significant levels of investment by British Professor Travers: Then crucially it would depend on investors in the bonds issued by Bordeaux and how much of Leeds’ total tax payment Leeds could Hanover, to name Bristol’s twin cities, for instance? access. Without looking at it, I would be almost 100% Professor Travers: I don’t know the answer to that sure that Leeds pays more in taxes than the public question but I’d be amazed if they were not buying sector spends on it, if you add everything together. So municipal bonds in other parts of the world. there’s no question but that Leeds could fund its schools; it’s just that it has to get the money back from Q118 Stephen Williams: So there is a market for it? London to do it. So, then you’re simply saying: could Professor Travers: There’s a very powerful market. I Leeds keep more of it—the taxes it pays—locally? know that American cities that issue bonds, citizen There is absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t and states, are regularly in London to talk to their advisers then it could easily pay for its schools. in the city because they raise money in the City of London to fund American cities. So, there’s a very effective market. If these bonds are issued, and again Q122 Fabian Hamilton: But that may not apply to we’ve all learned this from international finance Harrogate, for example, or Richmond in North latterly, but actually cities issue bonds and then they Yorkshire? get them guaranteed, which lowers the cost of the Professor Travers: Where it would not apply, almost bond. So there’s a guaranteeing industry as well and certainly, would be somewhere like Barnsley in South it’s all facilitated by our friends in the credit rating Yorkshire, as you know. I think in places like Barnsley agencies, but actually four municipalities and some or Middlesbrough it wouldn’t work, and that’s where local authorities in Britain now have credit ratings and you would need equalisation, but you can equalise they’re very good ones, better than sovereign states in with any of these taxes. The great thing about the many cases. sophistication of the way in which our local cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:40] Job: 008752 Unit: PG02 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o002_mark_Corrected ev 2 25-11.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 35
25 November 2010 Professor Tony Travers and Sir Simon Jenkins government finance system works is that the civil evidence; hopefully, Simon, your pessimism will be servants who run it could do anything you wanted in unfounded and I’m sure that will make you very this regard. happy. Fabian Hamilton: Thank you. Sir Simon Jenkins: All strength to your arm. Chair: Simon, Tony, thank you very much. That’s Chair: Tony, thank you also. Thank you so much for been very stimulating and we will continue to take coming today. Thank you, Committee. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Ev 36 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
Thursday 2 December 2010
Members present: Mr Graham Allen (Chair)
Sheila Gilmore Tristram Hunt Andrew Griffiths Mrs Eleanor Laing Simon Hart Mr Andrew Turner ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Sir Merrick Cockell, Leader, Kensington and Chelsea Council, Mr Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney and Chair, London Councils, Baroness Eaton, Chairman, Local Government Association and Lord Bichard gave evidence
Q123 Chair: Good morning, everyone. Can I Chair: Go on. apologise on the record, as well as privately, for Baroness Eaton: When you said “people are not keeping you waiting? We were detained by very sure”, do you mean individual residents of a place? important matters of state that the Committee has now Chair: No, I was thinking more of the leaderships of resolved to everybody’s satisfaction. I don’t know councils, people like yourselves and senior officers. I whether you would like to say one or two things don’t detect a great clamour and an organised effort before we start or whether you want to plunge straight to convince Members. I must say, as a Member of into questions. Does anyone want to set an agenda for Parliament, I can’t remember ever receiving anything us or are you happy just to take questions? saying, “We need to be independent from this central Baroness Eaton: Just to say, Chairman, I am not Government. We don’t want to keep begging for the Councillor Chris White. crumbs”. Maybe my staff have weeded those letters Chair: Not even Christine White. out and there have been thousands of them but it’s not Baroness Eaton: No. I’m sorry to disappoint you but been apparent to me. It is pretty hard to say “take the gentleman is stuck somewhere and, as I couldn’t further freedoms” if there isn’t that clamour. get where I was supposed to be going, I was pushed Lord Bichard: As the one person who has not been out of the door and I’ve come with great pleasure to involved in a local authority, I feel that’s a touch join you. unfair. I’ve seen some of the previous evidence. To be Chair: What a happy arrangement. Would you give fair, I think local authorities have been saying this for us your name for the record? years and years and they haven’t been listened to. To Baroness Eaton: Of course I will. I am Councillor some extent I think maybe they are feeling at the Margaret Eaton and I’m Baroness Eaton. moment—and have felt for some time—that they have Chair: Margaret, where are you a councillor? to focus on the improvement of the quality of services Baroness Eaton: I am a councillor in Bradford, West that they’re delivering. They’re facing huge problems Yorkshire and I am the Chairman of the Local with resources. I personally think they responded to Government Association. that quicker than central Government did and I can Chair: Fantastic. We’re all on first name terms here. understand why they don’t want to get distracted, in a So, if that’s okay with the Baroness and the Lord, we way, by just having a debate about who has this power will stick with that. and who hasn’t. I think that’s quite meritorious. I think Baroness Eaton: Yes, Margaret is fine, please. that’s good. But it would be unfair to suggest that Chair: And the knight? local authorities, local government and those Sir Merrick Cockell: Indeed. associated with local government have not been Chair: Unless anyone is burning to say something to making the case for greater devolution for many, start us off, I will plunge straight in. We are looking at many years. the relationship between local government and central Government and whether that can be codified and, if Q124 Chair: Where could Members find that? so, how it can be codified, not least to protect the Jules Pipe: I think both with submissions to interest of local government in the longer term. We’re Government, negotiations with Government over working closely—but not on precisely the same certainly the last decade, and also submissions to the territory—with our friends in the Select Committee on CLG Committee’s review of the balance of power Communities and Local Government. They are between central and local relations. Perhaps it has looking at localism specifically and how that works. been left to people like myself, Merrick and Margaret We’re looking at a slightly broader constitutional to make the case, but I firmly believe that local arrangement for the future. My colleagues have a government, in its entirety, is behind the submissions number of questions. I’d just like to kick off: if we’re that we and other representatives from our looking at a codification to protect local government, organisations have made. isn’t it quite hard to give people independence or freedoms when apparently they’re not very vocal in Q125 Chair: Is that apparent in the evidence that asking for those freedoms themselves? Discuss. we’ve received from LGA and others? Baroness Eaton: Could I just ask a question for Baroness Eaton: I was just going to say something clarification? that perhaps adds to what Michael said. Over the last cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 37
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton
10 years there have been 4,000 pieces of legislation together and bringing that sort of coherence to your and statutory instruments that affect local authorities, view? and that has created a lot of uncertainty about what Jules Pipe: I think there is a lot we have in common, local authorities can and can’t do in response to local across the parties and across local authorities, about requirements and local need, because they have been what we would like to see. I think, though, that so busy responding to the legislation. So if you look perhaps in the final analysis there are differing views at that cumulatively, it’s had rather a dampening effect about whether codification would be the answer in the on the creativity and the ability of local authorities to short term. I think the worry is mainly that say, “This is what we need to do; let’s go and do it”, codification, starting from where we are, it’s a bit like because there’s always a legislation or instruments the gag about asking a cab driver about how to that have needed to be looked at. journey to the House of Commons: “I wouldn’t start As an example, when a local authority wanted to join from here”, comes the reply. I think perhaps there is a mutual around finding insurance and ability to do a fear that working on codification, from where we things for the local authority, they found that they are now, would entrench us all in a place where couldn’t do it. So I think clarity and the opportunity, perhaps both sides, Government and local I would suggest, for a power of general competence, government, wouldn’t be happy. If it was perhaps which removes what have been constraints, will codification that fully—in spirit, not just in word— enable a legitimate local government to do what the encapsulated the European Charter of Local Self- people who elect them require them to do, without Government, perhaps there would be more consensus being in conflict with what national government has about it. But certainly I think everyone is signed up as its priorities. to the outcomes, even if there is some suspicion about Sir Merrick Cockell: I can understand how you whether codification, sooner rather than later, would think—as you explained at the beginning, you haven’t be helpful. been inundated with the clamour from local Baroness Eaton: I was just saying there was a government. In broad terms, not the leadership of concordat, which I believe still exists, that was signed local government, but the thousands of councillors out by Simon Milton when he was doing my role at the there have become used to being subservient; have LGA with Government. As a principle, nobody could become used to waiting to be told what to do by have argued with it but it did absolutely nothing. It Government. Then, inevitably, as in all those sorts of was words where nobody delivered anything. As a hierarchical relationships, when nobody tells you what result of it we used to have a central local partnership; to do, you start asking, “When are you going to tell central governments were supposedly to present their us what to do?” So that is at one level: the average Ministers with us so that we could discuss things that councillor feeling, “What is the point?” were of mutual concern and interest, and Ministers But I think from the leadership of local government— didn’t come and it delivered absolutely nothing. So some of it represented here but I think throughout the where I sit, I would be very concerned about having country—there has been a clamour. Some or most of a token gesture that, in a way, gave an impression of it, I would say, has been directed in political terms; so something being in place that certainly didn’t deliver within the political parties. Some of it has been cross- anything. So that’s my caution. Not that it sounds party. So the job that Jules does I did for the previous wrong, not that the principle isn’t fine, but action, and four years, chairing all the London boroughs, and how you make sure action happens on the back of it, we’ve had a cross-party document—a public is rather a different issue. document with all the publicity and everything like Sir Merrick Cockell: Sorry, could you just clarify that—making the case for London; making the case whether you were saying have we made the ask of for more powers, not just for the boroughs but also parliamentarians or Government? the appropriate powers for the Mayor of London. Chair: Partly. It feels pretty slow; a little bit Also, in political terms, a very senior current Member complacent, a little bit Stockholm Syndrome, “Let’s of the Cabinet has spent a good deal of time in wait for them to offer something and then maybe it’s opposition encouraging Conservative local acceptable or it isn’t”. It’s not, “This is our negotiated government to raise its expectations, not just to take position. We would like constitutionally independent the hand-outs or the fag ends. I have been at meetings local government. What’s your offer? We’re going to where he robustly—he is a robust figure—challenged campaign for this”. local government face-to-face, saying, “Stop being so Sir Merrick Cockell: Then we have failed because negative. Come out with what you really want and we can inundate you with Magna Carta for Localism, fight for it”—in these terms—“because if there is a Manifesto for Londoners, the LGA documents—every change of Government”, which we now have, “the pushy local government leader has been producing his opportunity for real change is there”. own vision of local government—or saying, “We should be the default position for local public Q126 Chair: So is there a clarion call? Is there a services”. The fact that you’re questioning whether charter of a request or demand or vision that, it’s out there means we haven’t sent it to the right collectively, you might be working to, that you will people. seek to propagate and talk to Members of Parliament Chair: So it has not been communicated particularly and Ministers; something that is coherent and in one well? place that will set alight a campaign to have greater Sir Merrick Cockell: Yes. independence for local government? If not, do you Lord Bichard: One of the problems, though, is that think it would be well worthwhile everybody getting when the debate has been focused on the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Ev 38 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton constitutional issues—for example, financing—it programme. Governments always seek to use local hasn’t got anywhere. I mean Michael Lyons’ report: delivery mechanisms—whether it’s local government, produced. Nothing has happened to it. You can go local health service—as local delivery mechanisms in back 40 years and this been happening again and administration rather than local government and again, and I think people have reached the stage where they’ll always use whatever is in place, short of some they’re fairly cynical about having a debate just about firm, codified constitutional settlement. They’ll those issues rather than about practical issues. always use new additional laws, new funding If you’re asking whether it would be a good idea to streams—whether ring-fenced or not—to ensure that have some kind of codification, I think the balance is the local administration delivers their agenda. fine, in that very often codes about relationships don’t While we would argue against the excesses of that, work very well. Very often they’re at too high a level. perhaps in its entirety, it’s a given, and I think we One of the problems with partnerships at a local would be in quite a strange place if we were arguing level—and I know, Chairman, you’ve been involved that Governments shouldn’t expect to be able to do in quite a lot—is that I think they’ve been high-level that. So I’m fascinated; effectively you’re potentially concordats signed by senior politicians and senior setting yourselves up as a bulwark against that. officers, which have made no difference whatsoever Chair: Only if asked and if we’re not asked, to the lives of clients and communities on the ground. obviously we can’t do that. If we’re talking about that kind of thing but at a Baroness Eaton: I did mention earlier, almost in national level, I don’t think anyone wants anything to passing, that what we have been arguing for in local do with that. government for a long time, and certainly with the So I’ve been on one side or the other of that kind new Government, is a general power of competence of line. I think I’ve come down now to think that a for local authorities, which is absolutely critical to this codification would be a good thing. I’m in that debate because it says what Jules has just said: quite position because I think we have arrived at the stage obviously and rightly, central government has things where some clarification of power and responsibility it wishes to see delivered to people and that’s usually is necessary. I think it’s not just to protect local via local government. But how that is done is entirely, government. I think Government itself—this as we see, down to the local people and the local Government—if it is serious about decentralisation— council because everywhere is different and one size and all the signs are that it is—needs to spell out to the does not fit all. wider public where responsibility lies now, because So if there is a decision to deliver a particular service, otherwise we’re going to have constant and continuing general power of competence would mean the local debates about postcode lotteries rather than postcode authority could make the decisions “how”—that is choices. what we’re asking for—so that the relationship that we have with central government is not one of merely Q127 Chair: You have to take those debates on. You delivering the national state’s view of the world. We don’t just accept it from central government. You have hear what it says, know it has rights to decide some to have a very clear position. My position is that I’m of the things we do, but not how we do it; that is for looking forward now—since this hasn’t happened us, and it’s amazing that you haven’t heard about the because, clearly, of some miscommunication to do general power of competence because it’s certainly with my office binning all your letters—to your going to be part of the Localism Bill. knocking on the door, with great vigour, of my Chair: I have heard about the general power of Committee Clerk and others with what you would like competence, but it doesn’t exactly have people to see. Two things have changed: one, we have a new clamouring in the streets for a change in the Government that says—and I believe it—it is relationship between local government and central committed to new politics; secondly, it has devolved government. power to a large extent through this idea about Baroness Eaton: I’m sure it hasn’t. Neither did the localism; and, thirdly, there is a brand new Committee called the Select Committee on Political and Concordat, Chairman. Constitutional Reform. We’re the new boys on the Chair: Yes. General power of competence! When do block and we are open and ready for business. Now, we want it? Now! you may be cynical. You may be a bit confused. You may be a little concerned about breaking relationships Q128 Simon Hart: Thank you. Two questions: I with the centre upon which local government depends. think the first one is the simpler. In your references to But there is an opportunity now, and I would ask you codification some of the answers talked about more to suspend your cynicism, get your ducks in a line and power and some about more independence. I’m just try us. If we let you down then you can say, “Well, wondering whether there is a distinction between there we go again”. If we do good job for you, then power and independence in this context and, therefore, you will have helped influence the shape of a whether that automatically leads to more codification, if indeed that’s where we go. accountability—which I suspect we think is a good Jules Pipe: I’m absolutely fascinated by what you’ve thing—and, therefore, more effectiveness. Before I go just said because, whether it’s cynicism or whether on to my supplementary, have I read that correctly and perhaps a better word is “realism” on local what is your view? government’s part, certainly I—and I’m sure my Baroness Eaton: Power and independence? colleagues as well—do recognise the need and right Simon Hart: I can go on to the second one if it’s of government, of whatever colour to implement its easier? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 39
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton
Sir Merrick Cockell: Power indicates direct control is going to clarify or confuse them. So, yes, you’re over whatever area it is. I don’t see the role of the quite right, I have a leg either side of the horse. democratic accountability of local government Lord Bichard: So you have to clarify the relationship. separating councils from councillors. The role of You have to clarify where power and responsibility is councillors is simply power over others, whether before you can codify it and before you decide power over delivery of services or direct power. I whether codification is helpful. I’m sure you’re going think there is a lot more community leadership, to be having the debate about the first in this influence, partnerships, some of the clichéd buzz Committee, although I think the hearing today was words. But I don’t see it simply that the state gives more focused on the second. people like me, and us here, power, as an alternative Jules Pipe: One way it could be thought about is in to them having power that they give the powers to us. terms of outcomes, outputs and inputs; the fact that I think it is a matter of the appropriateness of where the national government has the right to dictate that power is held, and the simple conclusion that outcomes for the country, for the people in this instead of being at the centre it’s in the town hall, the country. But dictating local outputs to deliver that, I county hall or the city hall, I don’t think is right. think that’s where people start discussing, “Well, we I think the other part to localism, which is often don’t have enough power. We are just being told what missed at this stage, goes back to the appropriateness. to do. We’re an administrative arm”. Perhaps It’s taking power down to people so that individual codification—or at least a change in power—could be areas have more power over their day-to-day lives and thought of in terms of leaving the outputs to local don’t simply rely on the town hall, the council leader government or regional government. Then also there’s or whatever. I think that is crucial. I think it does the inputs, which, of course, is another vital strand require us giving up as well, taking risks and about whether a body, such as local government, has involving others; I would say particularly letting ward the resources to deliver what outcomes are being councillors have a far greater say over things that dictated by national government and what outputs are impact in their areas, and working with the people expected. Of course, there’s another strand that can be living and working there. explored about outputs, because then it is the whole target culture that it was believed was in place before, Q129 Simon Hart: That leads me to the second and this Government believes it is removing. So I question, which relates directly to the area that I know think those three things—about where you place the best in Wales. You obviously have the national people responsible and have the power over outcomes, government based here, the Conservative-Liberal outputs and inputs—are a possible starting point. Democrat Coalition. You have the Welsh Assembly Sir Merrick Cockell: Can I comment on your based in Cardiff with a Labour-Plaid Cymru Coalition. description of Wales? Did you miss parishes out To drill it down even further, in my own county you somewhere along the line? then have an independent council and you also have Simon Hart: Well, communities in our instance. I a National Park Authority that, to some extent, mean, there’s only so much time. undertakes a certain amount of local government, Sir Merrick Cockell: That’s an example. I’ll leave you to decide whether it is regional or local. The comment certainly in the context of planning. My first question I’d make is that your description of the mass of is: would you view the Welsh Assembly as national national, principality, regional and local is, in our or local government? I have my own views on that world—if we continue my line of passing powers to and I’d love to hear yours. Secondly, and more the appropriate level—one we would immediately importantly, is this a form of codification? Are your codify. If we’re passing powers down, we have to tell experiences of the example I’ve set out positive? Do people what their rights are in this. So it’s a slightly you think this Committee is travelling in the right bizarre position that we’re sort of in two minds about direction as far as looking at those kinds of examples whether government should codify with the mass of and applying codification to them? local government, yet that’s the expectation on us and Lord Bichard: I think you’re in danger here of getting what we do as a matter of course. I think that comes confused. I think there are two issues you’re running from where power rests; national government does with. One is: what should the relationship look like, control us. Therefore, a code: how much does that where does power exist and where is responsibility? mean if government doesn’t want to apply the code The other is: is it helpful to codify this? I think they and enters evidence through the Concordat, and are obviously related issues, but they are different. everything of that? You can come to the conclusion that you want a I think an example of where power is not that clear is change in the relationship. You may decide that it something that London councils considered, and I doesn’t help very much to have it codified. I’m not signed about a year or so ago now; a year and a half sure which horse you’re riding at the moment but, if ago—with the Mayor of London, which we will give I may say so, I think you should be a bit clearer about you as evidence: the London City Charter. What that which one it is. was trying to do was say: here we have the major city in this country; uniquely or unusually, we have a Q130 Simon Hart: The reason I ask the question is region and 33 London boroughs. One is not because I don’t think it is clear. I think we have subservient to the other. The Mayor’s responsibilities created the situation that we live with. What I am knock against us, but we have our own totally separate attempting to ascertain is whether you think the responsibilities and neither has influence over the discussions we’ve having, and the codification debate, other, yet somehow we have to make this city work cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Ev 40 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton so how can we operate better together? So it wasn’t example—the relationship between the council leader, that he was in charge of us and we were asking him. the chief executive of the council and the borough It was: how do we do this better? So that’s a voluntary commander. codification of that relationship endeavouring to I think what Michael is saying—and we would agree improve the governance of London. with, everyone would agree with—is we need a Chair: Based on statute? degree of enforcement. So, as well as change before Sir Merrick Cockell: Yes, based on statute but based codification—so that it was a settlement that certainly on the free men and women—London’s elected local government was happy with—the second thing politicians—willingly, cross-party, getting together to would be that enforcement; all new legislation that try and do things better for the benefit of Londoners related to local services, or had an impact, having that and avoid those historic problems of one tier versus pre-legislative scrutiny and having almost a statement another. But that is from a relatively equal power of compliance with the European Charter. Where there position. Giving powers down to the next level does was deviation from the charter, there would have to not necessarily mean a subservient, master/servant be justification. Basically the Government would have relationship. to say why it was deviating from it, then the Committee would have to consider whether that was Q131 Chair: You are demonstrating that a a justifiable departure for what the Government codification is a framework and thereafter free wanted to achieve. institutions, or defined institutions, can then make Chair: We’ve heard the request on pre-legislative arrangements, discuss stuff—make treaties, in scrutiny. I think that’s a very helpful proposal. We’ve effect—about the detail. But initially you are heard the request for a joint Committee of Commons operating within a codified settlement imposed by the and Lords to be a buffer between change on the whim executive, and finding it quite easy to then move on of duly elected Government, which sometimes to do the other stuff. happens. Previous witnesses have also spoken about Sir Merrick Cockell: It does require an ongoing the 1911 Parliament Act, whereby the Second continuous willingness to make it work and to be Chamber can tell the First Chamber, “You can’t committed to it, because this Mayor—or a future change the term of a Parliament without our Mayor or a future group of London boroughs—could agreement”. It’s the only thing that needs the Second simply leave it to gather dust, as we’ve seen with Chamber’s total agreement. One possibility is to add other— to that Parliament Act clause B, which says, “You Baroness Eaton: With the Concordat. can’t change the terms of the relationship with local Sir Merrick Cockell: With the Concordat. government, as defined by a statute that sets up local Lord Bichard: Going back to that, the Concordat. If government in some official way, unless the Second you look at it now I think it’s too general. As Merrick Chamber agrees”. was saying, you do need a statement of the There are a number of things, short of a written relationship. But I think you need—very swiftly or to constitution, that can defend the rights of local have at the same time—some pretty key practical government and those are the things we’re going to issues dealt with. For example, I would have thought be looking at as we move forward on codification. it would be quite helpful for local government to Those are the things that we would appreciate your know that every piece of legislation, which had an help with, in terms of specifically—whether it’s impact on local government, was subject to pre- codifying what happens now or something else that legislative scrutiny because effectively that would we’d all like to see, which maybe more difficult— give an assurance that there was going to be real finding out how we protect that codification from consultation; because there are opportunities for local whimsical change. It’s something that we would very government to feed into that. That isn’t around at the much like your help with. moment. Why can’t that be part of the code? Because if you start putting those things in—if you take away Q132 Sheila Gilmore: I represent a seat in Scotland some of our cynicism, which I think we all share; and we’ve had a recent experience of a Concordat we’ve probably all been around too long—you have between the Scottish Government and local some pegs in the ground. government. I don’t know how far you’re aware of Jules Pipe: I would absolutely agree with that. While this, but I think it’s the observation of many people I’m very supportive of the city charter, I would view that it has weakened the powers of local government it as slightly more akin to, shall we say, the legislation rather than strengthened them. I think, perhaps, that that came in about local strategic partnerships. I’ve has to do with the point about power and finance and never met a council leader in the country who doesn’t the relationship of that to codification. I’d just say that they have a very close working relationship welcome your comments on that, if you’re aware of with their borough commander or their chief executive the problem. of their PCT. However, below that level how much Lord Bichard: I think it rather depends on what’s in integration and how much are people either not the Concordat. I think concordats can work, codes can working together or hiding behind rules about data- work, or they can not work and be a disaster. They sharing, which means that cross-working isn’t can constrain behaviour. I think there would be some happening? So there is no enforcement behind that concern in local government if this wasn’t articulated and, likewise, the city charter. It’s about creating a and defined in the right way. It would prescribe what positive relationship and, therefore, it’s down to local government could do, even more perhaps than personalities; much like—coming back to my LSP at the moment. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 41
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton
I think you have to get down to: what is going to be you can’t do that you may need to do. So I worry in this? I think if you start talking about pre-legislative about that. scrutiny; if you start talking about in-year adjustments Sir Merrick Cockell: Yes. I think we’ll know within a to funding and how that’s handled; if you start talking matter of days what the general power of competence about requests for data and information that can be means. But if it is saying that local government has regarded as trivial but consume a huge amount of time the same powers and rights as an individual to act and effort from local authorities, and how that’s going appropriately, provided they don’t break other laws, to be managed, I think you can come up with half a then I’d rather have that than a codification that says, dozen very practical things—probably a dozen—that “You can raise money on the bond markets; you can would help. put up—” because immediately that is saying, under Finally, Chairman, I would say I worry a little bit current circumstances, what Government thinks it is when you talk all the time about protecting local appropriate for us to do, rather than our just being government. I think this would be a statement of a liberated to decide for our own communities what new relationship, and we all have to think back—I’m makes sense within inevitable constraints. the person who was Chief Executive of Brent in the That is right for national government to give us the early 1980s; the scars are still on my back—because context within which we work but, beyond that, we there have been occasions when it hasn’t been central should be left to get on with it, provided we do it in Government abusing local government, but local a legal way and we are accountable to the people who government abusing the relationship. So we just need elect us and to Parliament as well. But, ultimately, the to be clear that if we’re having a code, it’s about the electorate can throw us out if we let them down, and relationship rather than protecting one partner. if we behave improperly, the law will take action against us personally or collectively. That is true freedom and a true shift of power, and it doesn’t Q133 Chair: Just on the word “protection”, I’m just require endless negotiation, and you can see in five making the point that statute law is the instrument by years’ time an amendment clause on the codification, which local government is given life. A government, and so on. particularly a new government, will use statute law to localise, to give more freedoms, and so on, to local Q134 Chair: But how will that be safeguarded? government. But then, it’s a phenomenon that, rather That’s the question, because it can be taken away next rapidly after being elected—maybe two years, I don’t year by statute law. Is there a way in which you can know; Simon Jenkins told us it was a matter of six defend whatever is on your list for codification from months after being elected—the pendulum goes the change within a matter of months? other way and statutes are passed to stop local Sir Merrick Cockell: I’m no historian or government from doing certain things and powers are constitutionalist, so I don’t know the answer to that. recouped, as they can be if there’s not a codified But the responsibility then is down to us to make it settlement. work, to deliver it. I think that the real challenge for The other question to put in your minds is: would the local government, whether it’s a general power of items that need to be codified include, for example, competence or a codification is: do we have the the right to raise taxation, the right to have referenda capabilities throughout, not just a few outliers, to be locally on bond financing, fundraising or other able to change our part of the constitution of this matters? We’ve had a list from Professor Jones and country and accountability in local public services? Professor Stewart of specific items and, again, we That requires more than a mind shift. It requires a need to know: what of these things do you all feel whole different way of operating in local government should be on that list—and, indeed, the general power and the leadership of local government and, indeed, of competence if you so wish—so that codification in ministerial and governmental behaviour. I think I can be halfway practical from the Committee’s point heard Andrew Lansley saying it not so long ago, but of view? when the Minister stands up in Parliament and says, Baroness Eaton: That sounds very logical and helpful “It has nothing to do with me. Go and talk to— but, by being prescriptive, it can create the situation Baroness Eaton: The council. we talked about earlier, where there’s more and more Sir Merrick Cockell: Yes. legislation and statutory instruments, which then prevent, and give the impression to local authorities Q135 Sheila Gilmore: I still wonder if even a that they have to check the law and the opportunity general power of competence is sufficiently useful if for challenge. I gather from my previous comments ultimately the purse strings are held by a higher level about it that it’s not popular, but the general power of of government, because I feel that that is what has competence says, “Thou shalt do anything that is happened in Scotland, where there were lots of warm useful to local government”. If we’re going to start words around this Concordat, about the way it was saying, “You can do this and you can do that”, there going to work and the greater powers that local is an implication that there are things you can’t do. So government would have. But ultimately it has come it is more about the very limited things that we’re back to, “We’ll cut your budget if you don’t do this; stopped doing. So it is saying, “Government gives you we’ll maybe cut it less if you do that”. It is down to the freedom to provide and do according to local who holds the money. determination rather than being very prescriptive.” Jules Pipe: I think that goes partly back to my Because once you start saying, “Thou shalt do this outcomes, outputs and inputs. The inputs thing has to and that”, there is an implication that there are things be part of any settlement. I’m not arguing that there cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Ev 42 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton has to be a blank cheque available. But, as well as any network. What I want to know is: what is going on government proposal’s being tested against, say, the among the local people—in other words the local European Charter and what I’ve said about a councillors, local district councils, local county statement of compliance, I think there’d have to be a councils—bearing in mind there are probably 40 requirement to properly consider any effects of councillors and only one of them is the leader? How changing responsibilities or levels of resourcing as much do you speak for them? well, so that things can’t be changed without evidence Jules Pipe: I think I can give a good example of that. of serious consideration having been given to the I think we do and I can give perhaps a small example, evidenced effects of that legislation. That’s been and I think a good one, of planning and licensing law, forever a complaint of local government: that changes nationally set, where certainly my borough—and I are made, new responsibilities are given, but know many other boroughs in London—are frustrated insufficient money is provided. With the Licensing by the inability simply to stop the third, fourth or fifth Act, for example, insufficient funds followed the betting shop appearing on a High street, because legislation. betting shops are in the same use class as banks or Lord Bichard: That’s why the previous scrutiny issue whatever. So a betting chain buying up a bank or a is so important. I think there’s a limit to how far you should or could constrain the power of Parliament to little insurance shop or a pub doesn’t have to apply do what Parliament at any particular time wants to do. for any planning permission whatsoever. That kind of But it’s important that any legislation, which has an thing creates huge dissatisfaction because, again, it’s impact, is transparently debated and people not about asking for powers. Often when we talk understand the implications of it, which has not about more powers and local government wants more always been the case. That’s why I think that any code powers, it’s not because it just wants a whole new raft should include this. We’re all localists here. If you ask of powers or new areas to inflict regulations on local us—or certainly if you ask me—whether it is a good people and dictate to people. I suppose it’s more the thing that local government only has control over 25% freedom to deliver outcomes but with local solutions. of its money, my answer is “No”. That is an issue that I suppose it’s that kind of power and freedom that I think we would probably all like to see grassed, but we’re really after and those licensing and planning the problem is that we’ve spent years and years issues are a good, strong example of frustrations with debating it, and nothing much has happened. our local members. If it was another five years while we debated that issue Mr Turner: I think that’s the first example we’ve had and nothing much happened and nothing changed, I today so I’m very grateful for that. think that would be a disaster. Total Place, which you Sir Merrick Cockell: If we’re into examples I can know about, was an attempt to say at that time, “In give another one, which will mean nothing in the Isle the short term, we’re not going to be able to change of Wight, Burton or wherever: subterranean the basic relationship, but there are things we could development. That is a permitted right that John do that would enable us to provide better services to Prescott allowed in the reformed planning. But in the clients and to communities. Let’s get on with it”. So I centre of London—in Kensington and Chelsea—as we think at some point the taxation base should be speak, people are digging underneath their homes to changed, but let’s not wait for it to be changed before create rooms. This is not just the palatial mansions of we change a number of other things. Holland Park but the workmen’s cottages of Chelsea or the mews houses, where people are digging down Q136 Chair: That might be in the Concordat? and creating rooms without any windows, without Lord Bichard: If it was changed it clearly ought to ventilation, light, or anything like that, and that is be, yes. permitted. But, of course, these are on the flood plains. Baroness Eaton: I know that in the very near future The impact on neighbours is enormous. There’s a the Government are going to do a local government rebellion out there that I cannot respond to because, resources review. I hope and think that the whole use in planning terms, I cannot and this is local. of business rates will come into that, which then would change that in that local government would I mentioned this to the Secretary of State a few weeks then have much more power to raise its own resources ago and he looked at me as if I was barking because locally. That might even end up, if the business rate subterranean development is not an issue in his comes back, to having a situation where the business constituency, and I had to explain why it was an issue rate raises more than the grant. So I think that’s part and there was no way to respond to that. Leading my of what we need to look at from the Government in council, with the force of the residents’ views in my terms of where we go with this, because none of us email box, I should be able to say the particular feels that the system works towards local decisions. circumstances in my area and a few others mean that we should be able to prevent, or constrain, or apply Q137 Mr Turner: Could I just start by asking if—it planning laws locally that reflect local need and is clear to me—you accept that we can’t change your demand, and everything like that. At the moment that powers forever? It is up to the Government where they is impossible to achieve and I can’t think of a good are at any one point? reason why the weight of my residents and local Baroness Eaton: Yes. planning should not be able to determine something like that, far better and far more accountably than the Q138 Mr Turner: You see the next thing that worries planning people down in Bristol or CLG have been in me is that you are all national people in a local the past. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 43
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton
Lord Bichard: Certainly before the election, the Baroness Eaton: It is a culture that we really have to control of and size of conservation areas was change and understand. Also I think the idea—that something that local authorities— perhaps affects what you are saying—that councils Sir Merrick Cockell: Exactly. will be able to design their structure as they wish for Lord Bichard: I think one of the problems is that members, then I hope, they would all think they have national politicians, if I may say so, ask for examples; a major role in the decision-making as opposed to just they get examples and then they dismiss them as in their area where they are looking after it, because anecdotal. The three examples you’ve had are an that’s important. indication of the culture that has existed. Q141 Chair: If there is a general power of Q139 Mr Turner: Those are areas where the public competence to come, will it override all these things demand action and you are acting. But what you’re on licensing and subterranean developments? Will that talking about most of the time seems to be a high level take precedence over statute law? that doesn’t impact on Burton-on-Trent, or Baroness Eaton: It depends how it’s drafted, wherever—I say “Burton-on-Trent” because I don’t Chairman. I understand that if the existing legislation want to give the Isle of Wight as an example because is removed and a new statute is put in place, that stops we’re a unitary authority—and what worries me is those sorts of arguments but I’m not sure how it will that 30 out of 40 councillors aren’t involved in work until we see what it says. But it could have running things. Beneath them there’s very little challenges unless there is clarity about what has been contact between members of the public and those five removed before you create the new one. or 10 people who occasionally meet yourselves and, Jules Pipe: I’m afraid I’m not such a constitutional even more occasionally, us. expert as to be able to know how any codification, or Chair: I’d like colleagues to answer that in the any law that could be drawn up around what we’re context of political and constitutional reform, rather discussing today, interacts with the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, what supersedes the other one and than localism, which is obviously our sister whether the other one references that. committee. Lord Bichard: But if we believe in local democracy, Q142 Chair: if we believe in democracy, it is important that the Once again, that’s why we are interested in the concept of codification, which individuals you talk about—the 39 councillors who notches up one notch above statute law by having aren’t leaders—have some power, some space. certain defences. So if it states, “Local government Mr Turner: I agree. powers shall not be inhibited unless both Houses Lord Bichard: They need that to maintain their agree”, or some such, it stops that constant chipping credibility with the electorate. If they always have to away and changing of the relationship between the respond to what seems to be a sensible, practical two, certainly on an annual, if not a monthly basis. request by saying, “I’m sorry, I can’t do that; the So, again, in terms of our Committee’s work, I would council can’t do that; that has to go to the Secretary ask for you to think about that extra step beyond of State”, people will look at them and they think, someone giving you a power today that they could “Well, what is the point of this democracy?” take away tomorrow. Jules Pipe: I think it is going to be hugely difficult Q140 Mr Turner: I agree, but at the moment that because I don’t see how one can exactly have a true is where they are and they aren’t meeting. Even my power of general competence, and it still lives councillors don’t say, “Frequently, we don’t have comfortably with completely legitimate and these things that should be under local control but are irrevocable needs to have, say, a Town and Country in fact under national control”, and I’m trying to Planning Act for the country, or something similar. understand why that isn’t happening. But it’s the fact that such a document as the 1947 Act Lord Bichard: The other members of the panel may is peppered with things such as use classes. It’s not agree with this. It has been said that, in some changed over time since 1947 obviously, but ways, local authorities have almost been infantilised enshrined throughout that legislation are these and local authority members have been infantilised. complications that wouldn’t necessarily be removed Now, clearly the people on this panel have not been, by a power of general competence. but a lot of people have, and I often liken it to Baroness Eaton: I don’t know whether they would someone coming out of prison after 25 years and they or not. stand at the gates and people say to them, “How lucky Jules Pipe: So it’s almost as if it can’t be done in you are to be free”, and they are fearful. They are isolation. It’s a case of going through all the anxious. They do not know what’s going on around legislation. them. I think Government needs to understand that, Chair: Every other western democracy deals with this as a result of its actions, it has created the kind of question quite comfortably. It’s only in a highly environment that you describe and not use that as a centralised society, like the UK, that we agonise about reason for not doing something about it now. whether use classes from 1947 infringe a general Baroness Eaton: Even the local public service, the power of competence. officers will say to members who want to do something, “Oh, well, we have to wait for the Q143 Tristram Hunt: First, at the back of my mind guidance”. I’m wondering whether there’s any difference Mr Turner: Yes, absolutely. between a general power of competence and a power cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Ev 44 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton of general competence. But when we talked about the we delivered it. If we’d had financial freedoms, we previous freedoms that local government had and the could have easily, frankly, raised that money. You’re great era of local government—of the LCC and the right: without the financial freedoms it means next to 1880s, 1890s, early 1900s, up to the 1907 elections— nothing, because we cannot then aim to do crazy that was absolutely on the grounds that essentially things that the Victorians did; whether it’s clean water local government pushed the barriers as far as it could or health or getting rid of the slums, or whatever the until central Government came down on it like a ton equivalent for our communities may be. They got on of bricks. So it experimented, diversified and built with it and in very short time they created true council housing until it was told it couldn’t, and all revolution. the rest of it. Baroness Eaton: Yes. What was so interesting about Two points: first, that was predicated on an Imperial that, it was because everywhere is so different and Parliament rather than a Westminster Parliament. So, everyone could act differently. At the moment we’re in any real sense, can you have the kind of freedom all constrained so that we all have virtually to behave and liberation necessary with us sitting here, even if in the same way, whether we have the same problems we go down from 650 to 600? I wait for the day that or the same issues or not. Andrew Lansley says, “Nothing to do with me, gov. Chair: Merrick, in particular, I’d like you think about Take that up with the local authority leader. But it’s those financial constraints and liberties and what form an interesting question”. Will we all need to go on re- they would need to take in something that goes education camps to get rid of postcode lottery beyond statute law into a codification. If we’re not language? clear about that, I think Tristram is right, we don’t Secondly, all this stuff about charters and concordats; get anywhere. it all comes down to money and financial autonomy, Jules Pipe: I wouldn’t disagree at all with what doesn’t it? If you have financial power and if cities Merrick said. Although I think a complete departure and local authorities have autonomy, the power and a total fiscal autonomy is always going to be very relationship changes, and we can have as many fine difficult to achieve, simply because there’ll always be words in vellum and all the rest of it as we like, but a need for equalisation, because of those outliers that if you have the business rate back and an end to rate Merrick mentioned. capping; if you have local taxation systems and a diversified tax base—without necessarily going as far Q144 Chair: Why must that be a role for central as the liberation struggles of Brent in the early Government? Why can’t local government itself 1980s—if you have the freedoms that it comes with, produce equalisation at least as good as that being then the whole thing changes. We can produce a produced from Eland House? lovely report and the CLG Committee can produce a Lord Bichard: I think it can. I think you’re raising the lovely report and we can have lots of lovely words, issue of accountability again and I don’t think we’ve but it’s meaningless without fiscal autonomy, isn’t it? unpacked that at all. I think all I would say is that I’m Sir Merrick Cockell: I think you’re absolutely right. sceptical about, “in one bound you’re free”. The world If we think about the great ask that we’re after—and that we’ve inhabited, which is changing but could we have been for a long time—is the business rate change back, is one where local authorities haven’t and NNDR coming back to us. But so what? had much control over finance. That’s been made Everybody has looked at the figures now and almost worse by ring-fencing; Government’s determination to the amount that we theoretically give to the Treasury, ensure that every penny is spent in the way that it having collected the business rate, is then pretty wants it spent. Now that is changing. That has been well—with a few outliers like my authority and reinforced by targets and indicators. We’re free of that Hillingdon and the City and Westminster—about the but I notice that suddenly milestones have appeared. amount of money you get back. So where has that got I’m still trying to work out the difference between us? Hopefully, it has reconnected us to business. Well milestones and targets and indicators but it’s an that would be interesting for a start, but it’s nowhere. interesting intellectual debate for us to be involved in. We must have the ability to have potentially—and I I do agree. I said earlier, you can’t have local can hear the Treasury already—all the things that democracy on the basis that they only have 25% of Michael Lyons’ Report put forward, “Set local sales their budget being raised locally. We want to change taxes, bed taxes, whatever it may be, so that I can that but we want to make sure that, even if that’s work with my community, my economy, and flex that changed, we don’t slip back. Chairman, I think you in opposition to attract people to come and shop in also ought to think about this issue of accountability my area and the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham, because I think accountability is a much more his council can attract people to Westfield”; or now complex issue—I don’t want to become too academic that we’re going to be a three-borough agreement, of because I’m not an academic—than we sometimes course we’ll just be trying to defeat Lakeside think. In recent years, we’ve thought about Shopping, or wherever it might be. accountability as entirely about either accountability But it has to go beyond what Government is to central Government or accountability to the people comfortable with. It has to take risks. I would like to through election, but there are other forms of be able to build more schools. I don’t care whether accountability. they’re free schools or whatever. For my community There are different forms of democratic we still need more schools. We opened one Monday accountability. I have one of them sitting next to me. of last week, a brand new school. It took 17 years What is the role of mayors in the new arrangements? from the day I was Chairman of Education to the day There is administrative accountability. The last 10, 15, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 45
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton
20 years have been very much about regulation, Baroness Eaton: Oh, huge. I can’t remember the inspection and assessment of administrative proportions but very few people stay longer than one accountability, sometimes at the expense of local term of office. democracy. Is that going to continue or are we going Tristram Hunt: Sir Merrick did. Seventeen years to be changing that too? Then there are markets. since the Education Committee. That’s a form of accountability, too. I just think if Sir Merrick Cockell: Yes, I’ve done 24 years. we’re going to have a much more decentralised Baroness Eaton: Well, I’ve done 25. system, we also need to think through what we mean Sir Merrick Cockell: But if I’m allowed to comment by what sorts of accountability we need. on that, in London we did a thing called “Be a Sir Merrick Cockell: Just a quick point following on: councillor” leading into the elections in May over a Jules mentioned equalisation under NNDR. Of course, two or three-year period, and that was cross-party to you require equalisation while my borough is a net try and introduce local government to a far wider contributor. There is a wonderful graph flowing with group of people that might think about becoming a all the authorities and yesterday I was looking at one councillor and show that we weren’t some strange end with Westminster then the City and then breed of people who didn’t have families, weren’t Hillingdon and Camden and then K&C. I was looking interested in sport, were only political, all those sorts at Birmingham and of course Birmingham was the of weirdoes. No comment. But anyhow, my borough reverse. They were the largest receiver of equalisation, did a strange thing. We talked to some head hunters and I just thought—what a great city—the great city and a head hunter worked with each party. In my of Birmingham is the greatest sort of supplicant authority, actually, Tribal did it and we said we needed requirer of equalisation when, if it had flexibility, it’s to find people with particular skills: financial, asset the largest local government area in Europe, but it management, those sorts of things, for obvious doesn’t have the ability. Instead of looking to Treasury reasons. It’s difficult. We used to find accountants in or the business community elsewhere to prop it up, it small and medium-sized business, but increasingly can’t set about doing it itself. If Birmingham could do they’re not coming into local government even in it in Victorian times, why can’t Birmingham do it now somewhere relatively advantaged as London and succeed in financing the economic growth of that politically. area, that region? So Tribal treated it as if they were going for a non- exec director. They talked to 300 people and it was Q145 Tristram Hunt: I think that’s very interesting immensely complicated. They had to explain that you and it points to the broader issue, which is that, again, had to live in the area, so that got rid of loads of when you look at history right up to World War Two, people who just didn’t, and everything like that. But arguably, you have very strong regional forms of in the end they got us three people who we introduced capital, much more dispersed around the country. With into the political system. I didn’t tell people who the those forms of capital, embedded business elites often three were and one of them went through and was formed a bedrock of local government and the elected, and everything like that. She was a young connection between local government and local mother, but had been in the City and worked for power. Take the Michael Heseltine sort of paradigm Lehmans and that life had changed, and so on. She of the branch office syndrome of Leicester, which had all the skills, but it had never crossed her mind used to have an awful lot of headquarters in its city, that local government was an area to go into, partly with business, corporate and social elites surrounding because she wasn’t that political, but one finds a way that, providing the leadership at local government through. So there is a question of whether we would level, which gave it the power and all the rest of it. If we get the community leaders of the future that could you look back at the history of Birmingham, it was actually turn round areas. I think that we can but there transformed not because of any permissive legislation is a lot of work to be done on—as Margaret said— but because of the people who went into local showing them that it’s worth bothering, worth coming government at a particular moment. Without wishing into it in the first place. That does mean a shift of in any way to denigrate the leadership of local powers so that you can go into it as an alternative to government, which I think is spectacular—we’ve not going, like you, into Westminster and have a heard time and again that the mistakes in Whitehall political or a local community life. are far more egregious than the mistakes in town Chair: We are interested in the impact on political halls—is there the indigenous civic leadership in local parties and the gene pool of politics, that the weakness government that will be able to utilise any freedoms of local government puts a lot of people off who might or make the right degree of case for the freedoms? otherwise join that gene pool from all sorts of parties. Baroness Eaton: Is not part of that issue the fact that We’ll be looking at that further. Just to remind you if people feel they can’t make decisions about the again, you can always have in the back of your mind local things that matter to people, why would you go that constitutional relationship between local and into it? central government, and how that might be put on a Tristram Hunt: Then they do not go into it, yes. sound footing. Again, I’m just conscious of not Baroness Eaton: So it’s a bit chicken and egg, isn’t treading on my friends’ toes at my sister Select it? Some of us did, hoping that we’d be able to make Committee. a difference. If you look at the number of councillors who only stick one term, that tells you a lot about Q146 Mrs Laing: Haven’t we reached the crux of the matter. the discussion when we talk about funding and Tristram Hunt: What are those figures? autonomy of funding? If we have no capping and no cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Ev 46 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton ring fencing, which would produce real freedom to mean at this table, I mean elsewhere—why isn’t there raise taxes and to spend, do we then have to say, the a political, democratic debate about the level of library first time the Daily Mail runs a big double-page spread resources in a local area? Probably there will be howls on postcode lottery and the unfairness between this from library representatives across the country, that part of the country and that—you know the whole no, we should have a national dictat about the level story—do we then have to dig our heels in and say, of library provision and how many borrowings per “Postcode lottery, so what? That’s localism”? capita there ought to be in each local authority. Baroness Eaton: Postcode choice. I think Perhaps many people out there think that will be a terminology is quite critical and it’s about choice. I good thing, and I need to acknowledge that they have think that’s how it has to be sold to people: that you that view. But I think there are some core things that are part of a community, you have representatives, we ought to agree that, for decency’s sake, in a they represent your views and, therefore, they make country that is comfortable with itself and has a good choices that you would make. Next door will make level of social cohesion and responsibility for others, different choices. It’s a real cultural change and it there are areas that we should agree on, standards won’t happen overnight, but I think that’s inevitable. should be met, and then local choice about whether Lord Bichard: It’s a real act of political courage, too. you go beyond those standards. It’s a real act of political courage on the part of any Prime Minister, whatever the party, to get up at the Q147 Chair: In other countries where there is some Dispatch Box and say, “This is a local matter”. My form of codification, or written constitution, about the own view is that there are some things where that is rights of local government, there are also Human impossible; for example, for a Prime Minister or a Rights Acts or attachments to constitutions. There is Secretary of State to get up and say, “Well, yes, I also an inspection facility in regime, but probably know it takes four times as long in”—these are even more important is that there is best practice, that fictitious examples—“Newcastle to get cancer care local authorities themselves create institutional forms than it does in Falmouth. That’s localism.” I don’t that raise the standard themselves rather than think that’s acceptable. necessarily have it imposed upon them, but that’s But we do live in a world where the bureaucrats have other countries. been able to define—I think it was 2,000 at one Jules Pipe: No, absolutely. I am a passionate believer point—targets and indicators for local government. I in a local library system and local authorities think we ought to be able to define those issues where providing a library system, but I think that’s a case uniformity is required across the country, and there for me to make and go to the electorate and get are a very small number of issues. You have to select support for, rather than it be imposed. them out. It is an act of political will, all of this. We Chair: Merrick, did you have anything before I ask know what happens. Look at the Baby P case, for Eleanor? example. It’s quite a good case study and it’s Sir Merrick Cockell: No, I don’t think I have anything happened on many, many occasions that Government to add to my colleagues. I agree with them, unless— find it very difficult—Ministers find it very difficult Baroness Eaton: I agree, too. and Prime Ministers find it very difficult—not to Chair: Sorry, Margaret, forgive me. become involved in what is a local issue. Baroness Eaton: No, I was just saying I basically Jules Pipe: I want to be a little careful what I say. I agree, too, about the national things that have to be suppose I need to make it clear that perhaps these are something we all agree is a standard for things like my views, not necessarily of my party or group or cancer care nurses. I agree with you about things that anything—the Labour group on London Councils. In have to be local. a way I am probably slightly more relaxed about the Lord Bichard: Just as a footnote, we should postcode choice than many. I don’t like talking of remember that the media are quite important in all of minimum standards, but I think that there need to be this. We’ve lost a lot of local media. The power of the standards and inspection in three areas of local national media is much greater, and the national media government: children, adults and finance. The first two are about demanding uniformity. I think that has made are obvious and I think the third one is key to stop the it more difficult to be able to say what was said, say, problems that we saw in my own borough 10 years of the 1970s, that the kind of richness of local ago, when it was quite easily the worst local authority government was its diversity. I think that’s a very hard in the country. I think it’s completely 180 degrees story now to tell to the national media. different now in my borough. But I think those are the three key areas where standards need to be met, Q148 Mrs Laing: Very difficult. I think Lord evidenced and demonstrated to—well, it’s no longer Bichard’s comment that it would take an act of the Audit Commission—whoever will be in place. We political courage is, again, the crux of the matter. know that inevitably, in the fullness of time, there will That’s why we’re looking at the possibility of be something in place once again, because there is a entrenching that in a constitutional arrangement. To need for that. be devil’s advocate, can I ask you a question? Imagine But I think there are many other areas where if it’s a scenario, in Chelsea, for example, with your not going to be local administration and it is going subterranean developments. Clearly your council to be local government with self-determination and takes that very seriously. Supposing you weren’t in outcomes flowing from local democracy—as I say, the charge of your council, supposing the voters had reason why I caveat my remarks is because I think chosen an extreme party to be in charge of the local many of my colleagues won’t agree with me. I don’t authority, and supposing that party not only cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 47
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton mismanages the finances, etc., but let us say it also the freedom but there is a balance if it goes badly permitted lots of—I use this example because it’s the wrong. example that you brought up and it’s quite a good Chair: Of course, all the North American continental one—subterranean development, and that it was very democracies have proper and, indeed, rigorous audit obvious to the residents that this subterranean provision to stop them having independent local development would have serious consequences, as government. Jules. you said, flood plains, and so on, and that terraces of Jules Pipe: No, nothing. Chelsea cottages were going to fall down, yet the local Chair: Eleanor, any more? authority continued to say, “No, people need more space. If they want basements, let them have Q150 Mrs Laing: Can I ask the devil’s advocate basements”. Is the Government to stand back? People question the other way round? In my local authority, would go to their Member of Parliament and the we had a situation that happened across the country. Member of Parliament would approach the Minister. For example, the last Government decided that there Are the Member of Parliament and the Minister to should be a certain number of Gypsy pitches say, “No, if this is what the local government decides throughout the country. The central Government then to do, then those terraces will fall down”? decided specifically where those would be. There was Sir Merrick Cockell: Provided it is clear to people no choice for local government. Every local authority that this decision has been taken locally, that it is was then required, under pain of penalty, to provide a transparent and open and it’s not somebody else certain number of Gypsy pitches. If the local people telling the owners, and the position really has are absolutely against that and if the local authority changed, then—I’m being a bit naive here because I says, very reasonably, “We already provide more than think of Doncaster and places like that where the anywhere else in this region and we have been very electorate has not done what you would expect them reasonable in this”, but the government instruct the to do when they’re clearly unhappy— local authority that it must implement central Mrs Laing: And Hull. government policy, is that local authority then acting Sir Merrick Cockell: Yes, and going back, probably as a local government—a democratically elected local in all parties we can think of examples. They haven’t government—or is it being an agency of the state? thrown them out at the next election when they’ve Chair: Anyone want to take that one? probably deserved to be thrown out. But I suppose— Lord Bichard: Well, I think it’s acting largely as an like everyone here—I believe in democracy, and I agency of the state. These are really complicated believe that it’s better to leave it with the people to areas, but of course in some respects there are already make that choice than somebody else feeling that they minimum standards. Jules was talking about minimum have to intervene on behalf of the people. But that standards; I talk about entitlements. There are takes time and that doesn’t deal with the newspaper already— headline and all those things where, “Minister, you Jules Pipe: Sorry, Michael, not “minimum”, I have to give us an answer now at the Dispatch Box specifically said not minimum. There should be about what you’re going to do about this”. If it’s a standards. child dead, which is different from subterranean Lord Bichard: There should be standards. I think in development, this is really when you’re into difficulty. some areas there should be—not geographical—in Subterranean, I think my argument would be fine, but some areas there should be entitlement. But there are if we had the Haringey events again, then— things like the Human Rights Act, which enable Chair: Although one has to say, the Haringey events communities and individuals to challenge bodies, like occurred in a highly centralised society that proved local authorities, if they feel that the local authority is itself incapable of allowing good practice or enabling acting unreasonably. It seems to me that what localism good practice, having spent billions of pounds on so- is about is ensuring that communities and individuals called child protection. So perhaps they’ve had their who feel at a disadvantage have the ability to turn and perhaps local authorities might get it better challenge their local democratically elected authority, than the imposed structure through lots of Acts of but that is different from Government telling them Parliament. But that’s a point of contention. Margaret. what they should do on an issue like that, which I Baroness Eaton: No, I don’t think I have anything to think is a very local issue. add except you did mention, Eleanor, if they got their Chair: There is obviously hundreds of years of finances badly wrong. Just because we’re not having common law also— our assessments in the old way, there is still the Lord Bichard: This is legal accountability. auditor taking account of local authorities’ behaviour Chair:—of convention and custom and practice, financially, so it’s not exactly a free rein. There are which would not be superseded by any codification, constraints around that already, quite rightly. indeed by a written constitution. There would still be interpretations allowed and made through the Q149 Mrs Laing: Yes, and that would be in the appropriate judicial structure. Merrick, on Eleanor’s general power of competence or in the codification? question. Baroness Eaton: Well, I would assume that within the Sir Merrick Cockell: Of course, you have picked one power of competence there may be something of the most difficult ones that has us all squirming additional. If I was writing them, and I’m not, you’d away here. put something additional into the district audit role Mrs Laing: It is difficult and it’s real. about some reporting mechanism, maybe to Sir Merrick Cockell: Yes. Find me a local authority Parliament, when things do go wrong. That still gives that, I hope, given freedom would willingly say, “Yes, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Ev 48 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton and we have the perfect place for a Traveller site”. My question goes back to this issue of do we need to But I think this is exactly an area where national codify. Have we missed the boat a bit? Is this Government should say, “Here is a group of people something we should have been talking about six that have rights, that lead a certain style of life that months ago or 12 months ago, and have the may not be what most people think is reasonable, but Government’s decisions for localism, to hand power they have a right to do that and they have a history, down, actually shifted where the emphasis needs to and all those sort of elements, and the expectation of be? My worry is that it’s a bit like investing in a national Government is that local government makes chastity belt when you’re seven months’ pregnant. It’s provision for finding places for them to live, in a way too late because the game has moved on a bit. If you that they fulfil the law and everything like that but look at the Localism Bill, if you look at the devolution live the style of life they want to live”. If local of power we’ve seen just this week with the White government says, “We’re not up to that. We can’t do Paper on Health giving local authorities much more it. It’s too difficult”, well then, I think that is where power over commissioning and health well-being; if national government could legitimately say, “Well, if you look at some of the things that have happened in you can’t do it, we’re going to have to do it”. The removing the ring fencing; in the general power of choice is there. The opportunity for local government competence, which I think is a fundamental shift; if is to find a way and—I haven’t checked with Margaret you look at the things that local government are beforehand—it might well say to the Local already doing that are innovative—you know, Government Association, “That is an expectation. Merrick, the super council, which I think is really Now you go and sort it out”. Give them the freedom innovative—shared services, shared chief executives to work it out. and the pooling of sovereignty by local government Chair: I can see colleagues all getting agitated about already, doesn’t that show that local government has their own particular cases, and I have some, too, so picked up the ball and started to run with it? Actually, we’re just going to have to— you don’t need somebody to codify it, you just need Sir Merrick Cockell: They are. But, anecdotally, we the ability to be able to get on and do it. have a Travellers’ site, not a well placed one but Lord Bichard: This is a relationship with at least two shared between Hammersmith and Fulham and K&C, parties. For a start, I don’t believe that we have yet and we have worked to make that effective. I don’t seen some of the complexities of decentralisation quite believe that local government out there isn’t up unpicked, so by no means do I think we’ve come to to this, but at least the government have made the the end of this game. But the things that you’ve talked offer. If local government has said, “No, this is all too about could easily be unpicked. When the first thing difficult for us” well then, I think national goes wrong in a decentralised system and the governments legitimately should be able to say, “Well, Government, Secretary of State or a Minister are then we’ll have to decide”. under pressure, I’m sure you will agree that we may Chair: Margaret, did you have a contribution? then see more procedural guidance, or new milestones Baroness Eaton: Well, we could have this sort of or indicators. We will find a new way of expressing discussion, couldn’t we? But I think one of the them. I think we do need to get to the point where elements, as to why and how local authorities feel there is clarity about what this relationship should prepared to do this, is the other bit of the law where there are illegal encampments and how local look like. Then I think we need to articulate it, partly communities are unable to deal with that, because if to protect it so that it doesn’t then get unpicked. they can’t then it makes an acceptance of doing and Jules Pipe: I hope we’ve been clear that local making provision more of a problem. In my own area, government welcomes the shift that seems to be we’ve had them a long time in official sites, but when happening, and if it’s carried through and the deeds the law around illegal encampment is so difficult and are as good as the words, we welcome that. But I complex and doesn’t solve anything, it doesn’t help endorse what Michael has just said and it goes back local authorities to want to provide what they should to what I said at the beginning about LSP: it’s good provide. will and can be rolled back at will without necessarily Chair: I’m definitely not going to go there. the kind of scrutiny and challenges in that rolling-back process that we’ve argued for. I think that’s when we Q151 Andrew Griffiths: Merrick, it was interesting get to where we want. Because, again, as I said at the listening to your slightly uncomfortable response beginning, change first and then codification. We’re in about Traveller sites. It does sound a little bit as a process of change, so I think the codification though you want local government to be able to do shouldn’t be six months ago, it should come later everything, apart from the difficult and uncomfortable when we’re all in a place that we’re happy with. ones, in which case you’d quite like to be able to Sir Merrick Cockell: I think, Andrew, the scenario blame central government. But going back to some of you paint is fair but it does reflect a part of where the things that have already gone through. First of all, national government and local government connect, or I can absolutely confirm that local councillors and rather than local government—local public services local government have been making these claims— and national government. Of course, I think codifying these calls for greater power. I’ve waded through it would apply across all government, wouldn’t it? It many a document produced by various local wouldn’t just be particular departments or particular government bodies, Mr Chairman, and if ever you areas. It would set it for all. I can’t remember the suffer from amnesia I’ll let you have a couple of number of Secretaries of State— copies because they are great at helping you nod off. Baroness Eaton: Twelve, I think. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 49
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton
Sir Merrick Cockell: Twelve Secretaries of State have Sir Merrick Cockell: Somebody said to me that, in powers that knock up against local public services, in fact, this whole argument about subservience, power most of which my colleagues—I don’t mean around at the centre, goes back to Anglo-Saxons and this table but elsewhere—think there’s only one, and Normans and it sounds right, doesn’t it? The Anglo- that’s CLG. Then they think, “Okay, a bit of Saxons with hundreds, and all the counties and Education and Health, oh, Home Office”. But it’s 12 versions of that, and then the Normans came in and and we’re seeing things happening at different speeds, put the centre in and took control. I don’t know—you with different drive and different beliefs from different would probably blow a hole through that argument. I Secretaries of State about the role of local public rather like the sound of it. I think the fact is, as has services in that. I think I agree that we haven’t missed been said, there are forces out there that don’t believe the boat. I think we’re on a journey and the that local is where power should be, and I’m not codification may be the clearest declaration by talking only of some politicians—well, the last Government that the work they’ve started has an end Government clearly felt that actually it was far more point that really matters, and that from local possible to control the state, to be able to make things government’s point of view, our performance, our happen quickly, by centralising relatively. So, things delivery, and where we are starting now with localism will shift again and if we could have it codified, well, and other changes—I sound like a supplicant, a victim that makes that more difficult to change again. So, I as well—are acknowledged. We’ve shown that we can think that would be worth it. rise to that challenge, and now Government have said, Baroness Eaton: I was just thinking of what Michael “Well, we’re codifying this so that we can never go said about Whitehall. The example is: local authorities back to and never replicate that thing of you saying being required to provide endless data that is of no when a new Government comes in, says it’s going to use and nobody uses, those kinds of things, which localise, spends two years, and four years later it’s create cost and are constant within local authorities. fallen apart again”. Instead of letting them get on with it, they have to Baroness Eaton: I don’t think I have a lot to add. I comply with all sorts of things, even if they’re told think Jules is quite right, we need to see what the Bill they have freedom, and information that’s no longer looks like, see what we have and then see what form needed. All those kinds of things get in the way. of codification, if any, we require at that stage. Tristram Hunt: If I might just on the Anglo-Saxon point— Q152 Andrew Griffiths: Ultimately, won’t it be the Chair: Go on, Tristram, very quickly, then Andrew. success or failure of the devolved powers? Won’t it Tristram Hunt: I think Merrick was absolutely right, be that local government proves that it can be more but it was always the self-belief of the Victorians that effective and do things better than central government, they were the Anglo-Saxons and that the unique that actually ensures that this devolution of power is nature of the English people was their belief in local maintained? Isn’t it about the outcome and the self-government, in contrast to Norman centralism. successes, rather than about it having been written Then the irony of the second half of the 20th century down on a piece of paper? Because I’m sure you’ll is we’ve become the Norman centralist state, whereas agree with me that the only thing that local France has devolved to the regions, the cities and the government got out of the Concordat was a nice gold towns, and all the rest of it. So it has flipped totally pen that they bought for the signing. That was the on its head. only real legacy that was left. Chair: Thank you for that, Tristram. Lord Bichard: But I think you overlook an important point. I often find when people talk about devolution, Q153 Andrew Griffiths: Just very briefly because decentralisation, they see it as setting local time is against us, but general power of competence, government free, and that local government can now if I can just quickly return to that. Do you think that do these things. One of the reasons why local there is a genuine understanding in local government government—and not just local government, but other about what a general power of competence will mean local agencies—have found it so difficult is because and what it will allow you to do? If we devolve that of the way in which the civil service and Government power down and give you that general power of have behaved. It is not just a question of saying, “Now competence to do what you feel is right for your go away and do what you want”. It is stopping, constituents, your electors, how do we have preventing that. I’m afraid that this is about Whitehall accountability over that when you can do anything as well as Westminster. We haven’t talked much about you want? How do we have genuine accountability that this morning, but it is, because Whitehall doesn’t both to Government and to your electors? I know, like giving up power either. So, ring fencing, targets, Merrick, you said, “They can kick us out every four all of those things were introduced as a way of years”, or whatever, but in terms of a transparency, controlling from the centre, and the danger is that how do we make that happen? people will very quickly get used to a new landscape Jules Pipe: I think a whole series of mechanisms is and find new ways of introducing control. in place. Obviously, through the ballot box and Jules Pipe: Again, I think controlling inputs and elections, it goes without saying, but the transparency outputs is separate from recognising the legitimate of information that obviously is being brought in at role of government to require outcomes for a country, the moment. You have the media reporting publicly right down to localities collectively then being the on decisions. You have people exercising choice more country. I don’t think those are at odds with one and more through the various services that local another. authorities provide. Complaint systems for seeking cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Ev 50 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton redress. Obviously there’s a question mark over On accountability, certainly downwards, I don’t think regulation, inspection and audit at the moment about we need Government to tell us how we should be where that’s going, but I can’t believe that it’s going building accountability structures. I think, though, we to disappear completely, and even if it does disappear are all going to have to work out ways—what I was completely I’m sure it will be back. Internal saying earlier—of passing on those appropriate management processes, and also key, I think, are the decisions, involving people more, thinking about the lay scrutiny through the Scrutiny Committees that role of the councillor. The Labour Government tried local authorities have in place, which are becoming to change this with the 2000 measure—it didn’t work. ever more developed as time goes on. So, I think there This idea that separating scrutiny and the executive is a whole series of mechanisms there. role would allow the mass of councillors who weren’t in the executive to be in their areas sadly just didn’t work. I think here we have to find a way and I think Q154 Chair: Is there a sort of dependency syndrome it may well happen through some of the planning as well? If someone will always come and help you elements of the Localism Bill that ward councillors, out, you can always cry and mummy will come and district councillors, will become the leaders for their help you, there will always be someone to offer communities in a real sense. I’d like to see a structural guidance and someone to tell you, “This is the way to thing of council leader, city mayor—whatever it may do it”, whereas if you are more freestanding and have be—London Mayor, ward councillor, as being to have responsibilities, you will grow mechanisms something you aspire to be that actually matters. that will get you in touch with electors, that will You’re not just the backbench fodder in the political rebuild political parties, that will make creative group or on the council. In your community, you are potential more evident in local government, the key person who is the broker, the enabler and interactive between different local councils. Won’t sometimes the decision taker; sometimes because you those things happen as a consequence of freedom can’t get agreement. That will require a real shift. I rather than expecting you to demonstrate that right think that will begin to build accountability, but I now when you do not have the freedom? think we should all be able to do it in our own ways. Lord Bichard: There is a danger that we think that all Some of us will trip up and make mistakes and others the guidance that comes out of Government is a good will follow those that are getting it right. thing, and it isn’t. He shall remain nameless, but I was talking to a Director of Children’s Services recently Q155 Mrs Laing: Very quickly, just to get this on who said, “My goodness, I think we’ve done a the record and to check with Margaret if this is still fantastic job at protecting children’s departments”. We the opinion of the Local Government Association, haven’t done such a good job at protecting children. because I have here the written evidence given to the Because we have so much advice and guidance and a Communities and Local Government Committee in lot of it is procedure and process, going to children’s 2009. I think this sums up what you said this morning departments and saying, “I feel confident that I can but I just want to check. The LGA stated, “This defend my department in most circumstances if we country continues to have an extremely centralised follow the guidance”. But the guidance is often about state. The effects of this centralisation are pernicious. process and procedure and not about outcomes. It is administratively inefficient, creating the need for So I think we need to remember that all this guidance elaborate and costly bureaucracy. It establishes is not benign, it can sometimes be quite negative, perverse incentives in which delivery organisations quite damaging, because it is pointing people in the have excessive regard to targets and rewards that have wrong direction. In the past, if you had given local no anchor in the demands of the communities they serve”. authorities clear guidance in an area as sensitive as Baroness Eaton: Absolutely. that, it is very difficult for them not to follow it to the Mrs Laing: In talking about the general power of letter. That’s why in the jargon we’ve moved to a competence, at that point the Local Government world where we are managing for compliance rather Association said, “Giving councils greater powers than managing for outcomes and value. That is one of achieves little if they have little to gain from using the biggest shifts of all that we need to see happen. them or if arms of central government continue to We need to stop people feeling that the only way they have powers that override or conflict with them”. succeed is by ticking the box and managing for Baroness Eaton: Yes. compliance. Chair: Do you still agree with that, Baroness Eaton? Sir Merrick Cockell: I certainly don’t understand Baroness Eaton: I still agree with it. what general competence really is. I’ve asked lawyers to tell me because, as they’re the ones that constrain Q156 Chair: Thank you very much. Just to conclude, what we can do, they need to tell us what it is going first, I was being deliberately provocative at the to mean. With the Localism Bill it will become a bit beginning, as you can imagine, but don’t take it clearer. Most of those powers we thought we had were personally. The one group I prod and poke more than powers of wellbeing, of course. Then, when Brent your good selves is my own parliamentary colleagues, tried to lead a London local authority setting up a in terms of them seeking their own freedom and mutual, a private sector company challenged that, that independence rather than labouring under executive perfectly sensible, reasonable, cost-saving thing felt sovereignty, which we have in this country. I have to apart. So, as I said, it will require lawyers to explain say I seem to have had more success with you than I what that means that we can and cannot do. do with them. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 11:41] Job: 008752 Unit: PG03 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o003_mark_Uncorrected transcript ev3 02-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 51
2 December 2010 Sir Merrick Cockell, Mr Jules Pipe, Lord Bichard and Baroness Eaton
Secondly—and probably more importantly—is there been fascinating and I think the questioning as well is a real point about the coherence of your approach this morning has been particularly good and drawn and your argument and the clarity of it. And you may out the points—to go away and help the Committee be bored of making it, I know, but I do ask you to by again perhaps considering a brief response to the have one more try because we are a new Committee, Committee on what you heard this morning about we are setting out on a new course, and we want to codification, what might be codified, how best that hear these arguments with some clarity again, might be done, and by all means collaborate and put particularly around whether you think the Concordat in something that you feel would satisfy all of you. and the European document, and other things, might You do have a degree of expertise in your respective be the basis for moving forward on some form of organisations as well as among yourselves codification. Whether that’s a codification that individually, and we would be most grateful for your operates at a high water mark of local government help in that regard. Do we then say that is definitely independence, rather than one that we try to devise in going to be in the report? No, we don’t, but we will a number of years’ time when we feel local certainly treat it with the seriousness I hope you feel government is being hit hard by recentralisation, I you’ve been treated this morning in giving evidence. think now is an opportune moment. I do believe the Thank you all very much for coming along. Margaret, Government sincerely means and is bringing forward thank you in particular for filling in at very short lots of interesting proposals about freeing local notice. We do appreciate it. government. I think it is a very good time and that Baroness Eaton: Thank you, Chairman. time will pass. Chair: Thank you very much indeed. So I ask you, if I may—thanking you very much for the evidence you’ve given this morning, which has cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Ev 52 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
Thursday 9 December 2010
Members present: Mr Graham Allen (Chair)
Mr Christopher Chope Simon Hart Sheila Gilmore Tristram Hunt Andrew Griffiths Mrs Eleanor Laing Mr Fabian Hamilton Mr Andrew Turner ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Sir Howard Bernstein, Chief Executive, Manchester City Council, Andrea Hill, Chief Executive, Suffolk County Council, and Stephen Hughes, Chief Executive, Birmingham City Council, gave evidence.
Q157 Chair: Thank you for coming this morning. it’s coming from; thirdly, I would accept there is a It’s very nice to see you. I think you’re probably very paradigm within local government, and probably well aware what we’re trying to do in this Select central Government, that complex social problems Committee: we are looking at the relationship between and economic growth are best dealt with by multi- local government and central Government. You will disciplinary approaches designed and delivered at probably be aware of our sister Select Committee, the local levels. Finally, I don’t think all local authorities Communities and Local Government Committee. have the same capacity. I think part of the problem in We’ve had a number of witnesses who have been to thinking about how to design things is that you have them first or are about to go and see them, so we’re to design something that is fit for the smallest district working very closely together. They are doing more council and the largest city, and not take into sufficient of the localism stuff—more of the nitty gritty—and account the complexity and differences between them. their Chair, Clive Betts, is going to talk to us at some If you want stratospheric, there are some good point about how that works and what the interface is examples. I was always taken by what Bilbao did, or with the work we’re doing. the settlement for the Basque region in Spain, which We’re probably being a little bit more stratospheric, is essentially that the Basque region got to raise all in that we’re looking for the constitutional and the the taxation and the national Government precepted political change angle. So it may well be that you will on them. It didn’t necessarily change how much feel at liberty to think a little bit more long-term on money went to the national Spanish Government those concepts, about where you would like to see relative to what was kept regionally, but it changed local government, maybe, in five, 10, even 20 years’ the politics and the dynamics of the relationship quite time, since constitutional matters tend to grind along fundamentally, and on the back of that they were able exceeding slow. However, having said that, we are a to lever in quite a lot to do the regeneration of the brand new Committee, so don’t worry about lobbying city. It’s something like that. A radical solution might us for the first time. You may be bored with lobbying be that local bodies—hopefully local councils—had for your particular viewpoints, but for us it will be all the money that was spent in their area, and they new, and we will be doing a very serious Report at commissioned other agencies, even central the end of this, which I hope will be imaginative and Government agencies, to deliver, because what that creative and give you the sort of vision from would give you is the power and authority to get Parliament that many of your colleagues have told me things connected and designed specifically for local they already have for the future of local government. solutions. That would be my ultimate ambition, but I will just kick off with one question and then ask my you have to live with the world of the possible. We colleague, Simon, to come in. It is a gentle lob live in a very centralised country, and although there question to get you warmed up, about local is some shift and certainly the rhetoric of everyone is government’s attitude itself. We have had some on that journey towards devolution, we still have a excellent witnesses but there doesn’t seem to be a way to go before we’re going to be there. unified, clear campaign on behalf of local government Andrea Hill: I think there is a huge groundswell from as a whole—at member and officer level—about local government that they want to be set free from where local government ought to be. Is that because central government. If you don’t hear it it’s probably we’re not looking in the right places or because we’re because we’re so fed up with saying it over the last novices, or is it because on the day-to-day business two decades, and nobody taking any notice, that you’ll you have to do intimate negotiation rather than step forgive us for sometimes feeling that it’s not worth back and pose a broader vision? Anyone like to start? saying it again. But local government needs to be Stephen Hughes: Yes, we concentrate on what we trusted by central government. It’s absolutely able to need to get done, and the art of the possible, but that deliver on the ground in a way that central doesn’t mean we don’t think about it. I would start government will never be able to, because local from four principles, which are: first of all, local politicians understand their area. They need to have politicians are very passionate about their area, and their democratic legitimacy recognised by central often central Government underestimates that; government. I agree with Stephen: I would absolutely secondly, what matters, in terms of accountability and go for a radical approach where local government is delivery and so on, is where the money is and where given all of the money for health and police, and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 53
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes everything that happens in their area, and they have a Moving on from that, part of the reason why we board within the locality that argues about local haven’t made as much progress as we might have is priorities and how that money is allocated. Central also related to—as Stephen has hinted—our government needs to stop controlling local preoccupation with this “one size fits all” approach to government. It has had such a managerial agenda over change: the idea that what works in Manchester and the last 15 years that local government has become Birmingham can also work in smaller local an arm, a franchise, of central government—a service authorities. That doesn’t work, because when we talk delivery arm—rather than being recognised in its about devolution there has to be a layering around individual right. devolution. I think we’ve recognised in our own places that if we’re going to deliver more on labour Q158 Chair: Just a quick one, which probably other market productivity skills, transport, then we have to colleagues might come back to, which is: if you retain operate as economic areas. Labour markets don’t local income locally, in very large part, what respect administrative boundaries, so we have to mechanism would you see for equalisation? work, rightly, with partners within those economic Andrea Hill: It’s an interesting question, because areas. What happens at a local authority level also Suffolk would be a loser if we kept national non- needs to be related to what happens at a domestic rates in Suffolk, and we’d lose this year by neighbourhood level. Therefore, increasingly, the role about £10 million. But I’d still advocate that it is of local authorities needs to be almost as a “first better for local government to keep business rates, among equals” in relation to a whole range of public because it provides an incentive for economic sector partners, and increasingly I see local development and it creates local accountability to government exercising a commissioning role, for and businesses. At the moment we don’t have this strong on behalf of communities, so that we get that accountability—either to the electorate or, integrated approach, which not only achieves particularly, to businesses—because there is no local maximum value for money but is also increasingly taxation relationship. While 66% of our grant comes related to reducing the cost of demand for high- from central government, only 26% of it comes from dependency services. That means tackling the council tax. Even then we’re not free to set what deprivation, which is also very important for fiscal council tax we want, because it can either be capped rebalancing going forward. or you can have a more subtle approach from Ministers about what level is seen to be an appropriate Q160 Simon Hart: Can I just pick up on the level this year. I think we do have to have the ability devolution point and be—as I am I’m afraid every to raise taxes locally. I’m not sure it needs as much week—rather unashamedly parochial about that line equalisation as we’ve had in the past. There is an of questioning? The scenario that exists where I live, obsession with national standards and fairness, which which is in Wales by the way, is this: we have a diminishes the strength of local democracy, because Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition in the Welsh Assembly; everything has to be the same everywhere, so what’s we have a Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition the point in local citizens having an active part in here; we have an independent council in at least one half of the constituency; and, to put some icing on the local democracy? cake, we also have a National Park Authority, which obviously has some bearing on local government. It Q159 Chair: Presumably the small group of civil would strike some of us that devolution, as far as it servants, currently at Eland House, who do this takes decision making from Westminster to the Welsh equalisation, could be TUPE’d across to an Assembly, hasn’t changed much at the customer end. organisation that local government itself created, and There is an argument that the Assembly is more their expertise would be marshalled by yourselves accessible than perhaps Westminster is, but has it rather than Mr Pickles or Mr Prescott, or any number taken decision making closer to the people who pay of people? the bills? Even after 10 years I think my particular Stephen Hughes: I’m not sure we need them, because jury is out on that. On the devolution point, I wanted I think we have the capacity to do it all ourselves. to ask you whether, simply taking one bureaucratic Chair: I’m just looking out for them, trying to make institution and giving it a Welsh postcode ticks the sure we don’t have too many losers out of this devolution box and satisfies you? process. The next point relates to— Sir Howard Bernstein: Can I just say a few things, to Chair: Can we deal with that one, Simon? add to the analysis that has been put forward? I think Simon Hart: Okay. That’s fine. There is a second one, there are three things: first of all, I’ve never seen— which I’ll come back to—a brief one. certainly over the last 10, 15 years—a powerful Sir Howard Bernstein: I think that is part of the narrative about what Government sees as the role of answer. I think you’re right: devolution by itself, in local government. Part of the problem has been that the absence of cultural change, is not going to deliver it’s about local government determining for itself what you all the outcomes that are being sought. I it sees as its role. I believe that has become an genuinely agree with that. One of the single biggest important part of how we develop a much more problems we face in this country in developing a very focused, integrated localist agenda going forward: strong localist agenda, and one which embraces the how does Government see the role of local pluralist model of local government, is cultural issues, government in shaping places where people want to particularly at the centre, where there is a mistrust of live, people want to visit and people want to invest? local government, where local government is seen to cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Ev 54 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes provide the opportunity for reputational risk, where it to give them promises that you deliver on. It’s not can’t always be trusted to deliver, can’t always be something that sounds natural, really. trusted to prioritise. I genuinely believe that what we Simon Hart: We all do that. need to do here is not just look at the devolution Stephen Hughes: Yes, I know. agenda in the context of powers and responsibilities but attack the cultural issues as well, because Q162 Simon Hart: One follow-up: I think the ultimately that’s the key to transforming services. All direction of travel in Wales is towards a situation— of us, in our own way, over the last 10 years or more, indeed, the Secretary of State said it last week—where have spent a lot of time leading cultural change in our to some degree tax raising powers for Welsh people own organisations, working with our partners in our probably ultimately reflect those in Scotland. I think own localities to secure better skills; better approaches that is an inevitability and not necessarily an to customer engagement; better approaches to how we unwelcome one, to be honest. work together to deliver change on the ground. I don’t One last question, to go back to the theme of believe that process of transformation and codification: does codification help clarify the rather organisational change has quite hit the centre yet. complicated scenario that I illustrate? Does it give Andrea Hill: I don’t know if I feel qualified to talk local authorities and local government more power or about Wales or Scotland, because I don’t work in more accountability or both? The straightforward either of those systems, but I absolutely agree with question is: is codification something that we should Howard about cultural change being at the centre of be embracing in whatever form of local government what is needed. Every local initiative that central we might be involved in, and indeed in the devolved government has tried over the last few years has been regions? turned around into another opportunity for centralist Stephen Hughes: Two points I’d make. First of all, if control. For example, with local area agreements, you do codification and consolidation around the where councils were going to be able to set their local current situation and settlement, then I think we have priorities, that was fine, but the Department for lost something. We’re clearly on a journey whereby Children, Schools and Families insisted we had to there is further devolution to take place, and I think have 18 mandatory children’s targets. There is a you’d want to get to a position where that was a bit cultural interpretation from the centre, wanting to tell more settled, rather than fix a current structure and us not only what to do but how to do it, and at the then have to think about how you do more. I think the heart of that is this issue about trust. Local councils situation in Wales and Scotland is slightly different, do have to be trusted to be able to govern their areas. because you have those devolved powers and you can I’ve never yet come across a local politician who do something about it. wants to reduce school standards or not help The other point is that it’s not, I don’t think, about vulnerable children or better the environment. raising taxes. The interesting thing about devolution is that Scotland haven’t used their flexibility to raise Q161 Simon Hart: Or a national one, I would hope. income tax. The interesting thing about something like Andrea Hill: Yes. It’s almost like central government supplementary business rates is that I’m not aware of believes they are the only people who are interested any council using that power since it has come in. So in those things, and you can’t trust local government it’s not about the ability to raise tax. It’s about the to set its own targets and standards that relate to its control of the resources that are in the area. It’s not own local needs. control for the sake of power. It’s control because we Stephen Hughes: I don’t know Wales very well, but believe that you can design services that better meet I have a number of colleagues who work in Scotland, the needs of the people by bringing together multi- and the feeling is that the point about accessibility to disciplinary approaches to it, rather than tackling it the national Parliament is quite a powerful one. The in silos. closer the government is to local working has helped, Andrea Hill: It’s an interesting question, because the and certainly we recognise that in a local government answer is that it depends what you write down. If you context. I absolutely agree with what Howard and write down what we currently have, no, it’s not going Andrea said about cultural change. But there is to help us at all and we’d rather you didn’t. If we can nothing like you making the decision and having the use codification as a way of having a conversation local people who are directly affected invading your about the rights and equal responsibilities of local council chamber, or whatever, or putting lobbying government with central government, then, yes, pressure on councillors, to bring home to you the absolutely, I think it’s worth doing. I think that’s the directness of the decisions that you’re making at that question behind your question, isn’t it? local level to local people in a way that rarely happens Simon Hart: Yes. in the context of national decisions. Andrea Hill: I don’t think anything that we’ve written Sir Howard Bernstein: Apart from today. down so far—even the Concordat or even the Stephen Hughes: Yes, and the other point is the one European Charter of Local Self-Government—goes that I made at the beginning, that local politicians are far enough. But certainly the European Charter is passionate about their area, they care, and that is why much better than the Concordat, which has made no they go into politics in the first place. That is why difference on the ground whatsoever. they get elected. You wouldn’t choose it as a way of I think the time is also right. There is a sense in what authority out of choice. It’s a difficult thing to have to the Government are saying about localism; there is do, you have to go around and knock on people’s the action of doing away with the Audit Commission, doors and get them to vote for you, and then you have reducing a lot of the monitoring and inspection. It tells cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 55
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes me that the culture is changing and this probably is right down to much smaller than ward level, where the moment to grasp it and to write something that is local people can come in and challenge what a future vision for local government. But if you are divisional commanders are doing directly and, of going to do that, and it’s going to be effective, you course, we have councillors on the Police Authority also have to change the performance management and at the moment until that becomes— relationship with health and police and central Chair: You have a point of view, but do you have government, because health and police are local a question? delivery arms of a nationalised service. They need to Fabian Hamilton: My question is that, surely, what be locally accountable; they need to genuinely set may apply in Suffolk doesn’t necessarily apply in local priorities with local government, particularly in Greater Manchester or Greater Leeds or the times where there is less money, because there is an Metropolitan districts; do you agree? enormous amount of waste and duplication at local Andrea Hill: Very hard for me to comment on other level. But in local government we don’t get the real, areas rather than the area that I know well. I can see full integration of health and police, because they look entirely what you’re saying about the police’s to central government for accountability, they don’t accountability locally, particularly through Safer look locally. Neighbourhood Teams and mechanisms like that, and Sir Howard Bernstein: Can I just add to that? We did I think they do work very hard. But they will still an exercise in Greater Manchester earlier this year and prioritise national targets, rather than coming round it showed that last year there was something like £24 the table and talking with local government about billion of public expenditure being spent in Greater local targets. That’s where their performance regime Manchester, and less than 15% of that total came is. under the direct influence of local government. I’m sure my colleagues will be able to provide a very Q164 Chair: Just before I bring Andrew in, all the similar pattern in relation to their own areas. I think witnesses have mentioned the question of timing and that brings into clear, sharp focus the extent to which codification. In a sense, Stephen, you can’t wait until we are witnessing not just a local government system the perfect moment and then start doing this job, but fundamentally a national operational delivery because then the perfect moment will have gone. But system as well. I think—to pick up Andrea’s point—that if we start to Our capacity to tackle deprivation is inextricably do something about this now it’s a really good linked to integrating work programmes to tackle moment, because we have a Government that seems worklessness. That’s our biggest priority, certainly in to me to be determined to devolve; to push more Manchester and Greater Manchester, and yet we have responsibility to local government; to have almost no influence whatsoever on Departments of community-based budgeting; to have a whole number state who are responsible for administering those of initiatives, with general power of competence, and programmes, because they are national models of so on. So to do a codification at a high watermark is delivery. I believe that what we have to move towards obviously politically more sensible than when they are is not a position of calling for additional tax-raising on the decline, because trying to sell codification at powers—because certainly in the current economic that moment when central Government are trying to climate, as it has been for the last 20-odd years, in my retrench would be very difficult. view it is one step too far—but fundamentally a role Stephen Hughes: Howard made the critical point for local government ensuring that public expenditure, around codification, which is that you have to have a which is being spent in their areas, is integrated to vision of what you want local government to be and achieve maximum outcomes on the ground. I think then write that up. At a time of fluidity, there is a risk that is the key not only to efficiency but also the key that you draw too heavily on old thinking and old to public sector improvement and reform as well. views of what local government is capable of. I don’t Chair: Just quickly on this, Fabian, before I ask disagree with your point that now is a good time to anyone else. write something, because the atmosphere is very different and has changed rapidly, but I think it has to Q163 Fabian Hamilton: Sorry, can I just challenge be forward thinking and not simply an attempt to something that Andrea said about the Police because, codify where we are at the moment. whereas I agree with what you said about the health Chair: Of course, yes. Andrew, you have been very service, which obviously started locally and was then patient. Thank you. nationalised in 1948 and has been increasingly so over the years, we still jealously guard our local police Q165 Mr Turner: Can we start with something forces and their local accountability. I can’t speak for which seems to me to be obvious but you haven’t your area, but I can speak for West Yorkshire— mentioned it yet? What is the power that the because I’m an MP for the other great city in the Government has and that Parliament has, compared north, Leeds—and I know that there is a great deal of with your powers? Can you change anything without local accountability and of course the Chief our approval? More importantly, we can change things Constable, as do all Chief Constables, gets annoyed without your approval—is there any way round that? when the Home Office and the Home Secretary try to Sir Howard Bernstein: Can I have a first go at that? interfere. But, by and large, there is a great deal of I think for the most part what we have at the moment local accountability, so I don’t agree with the point is a very clear set of specific, statutory responsibilities that you made, that they are not accountable to local where local government is concerned: you do this on people. I think they are. We have local area meetings, roads; you do that; you do the other. But on the really cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Ev 56 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes transformational stuff it’s all permissive: we are going Andrea Hill: Yes. to secure the duty to co-operate, a well-being power, Mr Turner: How could you put that right? but it’s still permissive. I still have to go, or my Andrea Hill: For most of my career I’ve worked at colleagues will still have to go, to the local manager district level rather than at county council level, and of employment services and say, “I think it would be of course Suffolk is a county area with very different a really good idea if we could integrate your parts to it. I think you have to have a level of programmes around work with my programmes government that is sufficiently large at a local area to around children and families, to provide people with be able to command respect and resources. You also a level of support.” I believe, while people have the have to have the connection between a true identity of right to say, “Well, no, this is a national model, I’m a place and its governance. So I’ve worked in towns delivering a national model, I have no local that are much smaller than Suffolk—Colchester, flexibility,” the vires associated with us engaging only Cambridge city—but places with a history and a applies with the consent of the other partners. What university and a sense of belonging and identity that I’m looking for is, in effect, a statutory duty on the gives them a local accountability to local people, part of partners. because local people identify with the area. I’ve also worked in districts in North Hertfordshire, which Q166 Mr Turner: If I may—even given the statutory aren’t like that. In North Hertfordshire, there are four changes, which you’re calling for, we can change it towns exactly the same size, and they have a back without a word of your approval, can’t we? municipal area that was agreed in one of the local Stephen Hughes: Yes, in terms of— government reviews. It’s not a real place, and then Sir Howard Bernstein: You can do that with you don’t have the mandate of people to do things. devolution, can’t you? There is an argument that there should be local Mr Turner: Yes. governance at a level where people can identify with Stephen Hughes: Of course, at the moment the area. Parliament is supreme and can do anything. Q170 Mr Turner: Yes, so if there was a Rutland Q167 Mr Turner: Can that be changed? County Council—maybe there is one, I’m not sure— Stephen Hughes: Only if you write the constitution Andrea Hill: It’s a unitary, isn’t it? for the country as a whole, I suspect, and put some Mr Turner: It is a unitary, yes, but it has all the constraints on Parliament. That is ultimately the only responsibilities, is what we are saying. thing you can do. But I think—and we found this Andrea Hill: I’m not into a “one size fits all”. That through what was then called “total place” and is now has been one of the difficulties with governments for called the community-based budgeting process—one the last 15 years: they have been compelling of the key things is the process of having accountable everybody to have the same system regardless of local officers to Parliament, and that drives an awful lot of difference. I mean some of your previous witnesses the approach that central Government Departments have talked about the Marbella Beach question, which take to how funding streams are managed, because, is a sense of: when you’re abroad where do you say quite rightly, Parliament wants to know how every you live? I think that’s a very sensible sort of example. penny is spent. If you make Permanent Secretaries of You can absolutely write down what the power national Departments the accountable officers for relationship would be, and you can absolutely write funding streams that are meant to be delivered locally, down that you’re then not going to change it. I mean you get a regime that translates right down to the local one of the questions you’ve been asking is about level. A way around that—and maybe community- entrenchment. If you codify the relationship between based budgets are an example where it could work— central and local government, in such a way that you could be that you create a budget at a local level and write a bold vision for the future of localities and then you create someone at a local level to be the you say that Parliament cannot change that, unless accountable officer. there is agreement on both sides, well that would be entrenching the powers, but I think that would be a Q168 Mr Turner: Would that be a local, local very good thing, because it would protect localism. person, or would that be a local person on behalf of localities? Q171 Mr Turner: If you have something different to Stephen Hughes: I would argue of course that it say, Sir Howard? should be the former. But almost anything would be a Sir Howard Bernstein: Can I just make a point? I step in the right direction relative to where we are at think that has been quite an interesting part of the the moment. evolution of thinking in Greater Manchester, and other parts of the north-west, over the last five years or so; Q169 Mr Turner: Yes. Andrea, you were talking how do you create a scalable proposition around about bringing police, health, dustbins and education devolution that fairly and accurately respects all to local people. The trouble is that, at the last individual localities? I think if you start to look at meeting, and this one, we have had people from large economic functioning areas, labour markets, you will cities; there has been nobody here from West Dorset, see in Greater Manchester at least 10 different places or from parts of Northumberland, and I’m very agreeing that in certain areas we need to work together worried that what we are getting is local-centric rather to drive competitiveness, to drive the labour market, than national-centric—it’s not local-dispersed. Do and so on. Equally, individual local authorities can you understand? then draw down quite a lot of what we’ve secured, in cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 57
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes terms of concessions or new innovations as a result of where it believes it will always be subservient to discussion with government, about how we tackle new central Government, and it shouldn’t be. ways of working with partners at local level as well as neighbourhood level. I think it’s possible to work Q177 Mr Turner: The problem is that if we—this in that way and at the same time respect the identity Parliament—made a list, being a Conservative and independence of individual places. majority with some Liberal support, we would have a different view from Labour and then there would be Q172 Mr Turner: But that means you can have a an attempt to reverse it. How do you make it health service that doesn’t allow abortions to take permanent or is it not possible? place in some counties. Chair: Can I just go back one stage, Andrew, and say Sir Howard Bernstein: That’s a function of whether we are an all-party Committee, and we would be or not you have a debate about what are regarded as making recommendations, which we would hope acceptable minimum standards of provision, which would find favour with all parties, and that is why are— we’re here? But whether it’s a codification or ultimately a written constitution—I don’t think we’re Q173 Mr Turner: No, but, sorry, who is deciding? going to get there in the next couple of years, so let’s Sir Howard Bernstein: That could be government. say a codification—it is not the end of all argument. It is a framework of principles and there will be Q174 Mr Turner: So it’s all right for government interactions at the junction of those principles; you to choose? mentioned abortion, Andrew. My assumption there would be—and I don’t think anyone as yet, none of Sir Howard Bernstein: I think, at the end of the day, our witnesses as yet, propose doing away with the there is a debate to be had. Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights or the power of the judiciary— Q175 Mr Turner: What I am trying to understand is: ultimately, if we can’t agree with each other, local and of course, there has to be a decision but is it right that national, to intervene and make a reconciliation. But it should be local or is it right that it should be I think this isn’t about every individual problem being national? That is the difference. solved on a list. It’s more a set of principles about the Stephen Hughes: That is a matter of broad powers, the finance and those issues. I don’t know philosophy. There are some countries where all the whether witnesses feel that is the way to go. But, decisions are taken at a very local level and some Andrew, any further questions? Do you want to come countries where they’re taken at a national level. back later? Mr Turner: Just this one point: it is actual things that Q176 Mr Turner: Yes, but the whole point of this matter. It is not principles; the things are what matters exercise is to try to work out where we’re meant to to people around this table, because we are people be, and I’m trying to work out how we work out who make the laws and it has to be very much on where we’re going to be. our side. That is my view. I realise you may have Stephen Hughes: What I was going to go on to say— different views. and I’m picking up on Howard’s point—is that I think Chair: No, no. local government will live with the situation, where Andrea Hill: If I may, I think the biggest shift in the national government set the broad outcomes and legal framework would be to have an assumption that objectives that it sought to achieve but gave the local local government can do anything in its area that is areas much more freedom and flexibility about how for the benefit of local people, unless there is a law they were achieved. In a sense, what we did on local that stops it. Our legal framework is the other way area agreements, although they are hideously over- round at the moment: we can only do something if we bureaucratic, was a step in that direction. The problem have the statutory framework to do it. The idea of the with it was that they wanted to set targets for services economic, social and environmental well-being power rather than outcomes for people. If that is the that was given to us wasn’t followed up in terms of constitutional settlement that you want to put in place, the legislation, so it’s very difficult to use it. that’s fine. There is a part of me that occasionally, Stephen Hughes: That has been a theme through local when I’m feeling mischievous—now is as good a time government for a while. I mean some time ago some as any—says, why not abolish national government people might remember there used to be a thing called altogether, apart from, say, Defence and the Foreign the “Free 2p”, which of course wasn’t free, the Office, and let local areas do everything? It’s a point taxpayers had to pay it. But it was free in the sense of view. That’s a bigger debate than the one we’re that local government were supposedly allowed to use perhaps having now. it on anything they wished, and the well-being power Andrea Hill: I have to say, the more I’ve thought was an attempt to make that wider, and the general about national standards, the fewer national standards power of competence the same. But on many I can think of. The only one I keep coming back to is occasions what has happened is that the judiciary has that people should be free from terrorist attack no taken a very narrow interpretation of those powers matter where they live. I wouldn’t even go as far as every time they’ve come up. Of course the latest one school standards or educational standards. I think all that you might be aware of was when a number of of those could be determined locally. I think it local authorities—I think they were in London— depends on your point of view, and I think local decided to get together to form a mutual insurance government has got itself into a cultural position company and use their general well-being powers to cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Ev 58 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes do so, on the basis that they were saving money for Q181 Mr Chope: Following on from that, do you the taxpayer, which must be in the taxpayer’s interest, think it would be reasonable in this new settlement and lost in court. It is an extraordinary decision, between central and local government to enable a because local authorities frequently self-insure, so it’s council, such as the one that you run, to decide on not something that we didn’t have the power to do, its own levels of housing benefit and entitlements to but the grouping of a number of local authorities housing benefit, and also to things like income together to do it collectively was deemed illegal. support—you could regionalise that? Both those That’s the kind of madness that happens from time issues feed directly into the issue of welfare to time. dependency. Would you like to take on that responsibility in Manchester? Q178 Mr Chope: Following up your point about Sir Howard Bernstein: In broad terms, yes, although saying it would be reasonable for central Government I accept in the short to medium term that’s an to set the outcomes that central Government wishes, unrealistic objective. What I think is an absolute and then it would leave local government to do requirement now is that the way in which work whatever it wanted to do to implement those programmes are brought forward needs to be outcomes, can I ask you to set that against one integrated with other public services in individual particular policy, for example: grammar schools? Do areas to support individual families. Let’s take you think that that principle would enable local welfare: in my experience, for many of the people at authorities to decide for themselves, and should they the moment who are out of work, some of whom have be allowed to decide for themselves whether to have been out of work for a very long time, it’s not just grammar schools and selective education? about saying, “You have to get back into work.” They Andrea Hill: That is not an outcome. I think that’s a will need support around skills development; in some very good illustration, if I may, of the difficulty with cases they will need support around mental health; the relationship between central and local they will need support around complex family issues; government. An outcome might be— they will need support around drugs and alcohol abuse. Those services are not just going to be Q179 Mr Chope: Sorry to interrupt, but surely the provided by a contractor who is designed to move outcome is raising standards of education? people into work. That is about how you deliver an Andrea Hill: Yes, exactly— integrated public service, a multi-agency approach Mr Chope: And the best means to that outcome might that is tailored to the specific needs of individual be seen by some local authorities as to introduce people. In my view, that is where, historically, we’ve selective and grammar schools, while other local not succeeded particularly well in this country, and authorities might have a different route. But, applying why I’m a passionate advocate—and I think my your principles, shouldn’t it be left to local authorities colleagues would endorse this—why we’re a to decide that themselves? passionate advocate of joined up, integrated, local Andrea Hill: Absolutely. commissioning, which enables public services to be Mr Chope: So you’d be in favour of that? developed in the most efficient way around the Andrea Hill: Yes. specific needs of families and people.
Q180 Mr Chope: Can I ask, Sir Howard—I agree Q182 Mr Chope: So, for example, you’d like to be with you about that as well, but that’s by the by. in charge of drug dependency services? You would Chair: He’s looking for an argument. like to be in charge of ensuring we get the right Mr Chope: Sir Howard says in his evidence that for services to people? many years the Manchester approach has been to Sir Howard Bernstein: What I’d like to be is a create wealth through the private sector but also using commissioner of those services. That’s what I’d like public sector reform to reduce welfare dependency. I to be. I don’t have to provide all the services myself. wonder whether you have any figures to show how I want to be able to commission local services in the successful you’ve been in the city of Manchester in right way to ensure that the people get the services reducing welfare dependency? they need to move them on. Sir Howard Bernstein: Not as successful as we have Stephen Hughes: I think that’s an important point been unfortunately in creating private sector growth, because, going back to what I said earlier, it’s where because we created something like 50,000 jobs over the money comes from that determines what gets the last decade, or more, all of them private sector done. You don’t have to provide these things to jobs. We now have one of the lowest proportions of determine the way in which people work, because if public sector jobs to be found anywhere outside you set out the method for co-operation and London. Unfortunately, our capacity to drive change collaboration and the outcomes you’re seeking, and in our communities, to tackle worklessness, has been you only pay them if that is what they do, then you more of a problem for the reasons I explained earlier, have a very powerful lever. You don’t have to deliver because we’ve not been able to secure the engagement everything yourself. and the alignment as much as we would like with the Department for Work and Pensions, Health, and Q183 Mr Chope: This my final point. I was a local others, in being able to provide an integrated approach government Minister at the time of what we might where individual people and families are concerned. I describe as the Hatton experience, and it was quite believe that is one of the most important requirements difficult in central government to see what was we have to deliver over the next few years. happening in a very important city in the country, and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 59
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes not to want to become involved. In the end we didn’t early intervention in the UK one would imagine that go in for direct control but we came pretty close to a number of councils would co-operate together rather doing that. Do you think that central government, and than people saying, “Oh, we have the answer,” and national politicians, have to sit back and ultimately reinventing the wheel everywhere. There would surely trust the people and be prepared to have a few bad be a blossoming of treaty making between these free experiences in the short term for the greater good? entities. Andrea Hill: That is what the democratic system is Stephen Hughes: I think one of the biggest strengths about. I think, because we haven’t recognised an equal of local government is that we’ve all devised local balance been local government and central solutions to similar problems, and the best ideas do government, that effectively we’re stopping the catch on and then they become common. Whereas democratic process taking place locally. We’re programmes where a “one size fits all” initiative controlling all local authorities because of our worries comes down from central government, and we all about a handful of local authorities that may be poorly have to do it—sometimes they work, sometimes they run, and we’ve develop such a heavy, centralist don’t, but they usually don’t have the same kind of monitoring system for all local authorities that it is the impact as something that comes from the grass roots inspectors who are making the democratic decisions upwards. about whether council leadership and administration Sir Howard Bernstein: I would just endorse that, and is any good or not any good, and not the local people. also say that in my experience local government has Well, if we believe in local democracy, and we want an excellent record of self-improvement. active citizenship, we need to have things decided Andrea Hill: Yes, I agree entirely. locally. Then people will be bothered about whether they go out and vote, because it makes a difference. Q186 Fabian Hamilton: We took evidence from a Stephen Hughes: If you want to use a national number of different sources, and evidence we received context, clearly national bodies are sovereign and they from Professors Jones and Stewart in recent weeks, can do what they like, but if they step outside said: “The present Secretary of State is deeply particular bounds you find that someone like the IMF committed to giving local authorities freedom from comes along and tells you what you have to do, and central controls, yet where he has strong views on other forces are at play, so even national governments how local authorities should act he proposes new are subject to constraints of one kind or another. You powers to enforce those views”. That rather sums up can see a similar analogy if you had a different the dilemma that we’ve been talking about. Sir Simon settlement between local and central government in Jenkins said to us, “You can’t have half democracy, this country. The interesting thing about the Hatton it’s no good”. So my questions are: firstly, if you were experience was that in the end all those people who given the opportunity would you want to have tax- didn’t set a rate did. You didn’t have to send in anyone raising powers locally? to make them do it. Ultimately, common sense shone Sir Howard Bernstein: I would, yes. through, even though there was a degree of madness Andrea Hill: Yes, definitely. at the time. Fabian Hamilton: It would work on a county, okay. That answers that question but a lot of— Q184 Chair: A number of witnesses have alluded to Chair: Are you speaking on behalf of your politicians the necessity to have any changes that might come as well, Howard? forward supported by improving the party political Sir Howard Bernstein: Yes, I’m sure. structures, which in some places are not as strong as they might be—let’s put it that way. Would you see Q187 Fabian Hamilton: But we’re often told that that also as something that would be quite essential if there’s no great demand for increased autonomy, for we’re going to codify? codification, and that this isn’t coming from local Stephen Hughes: My view would be that if you make government. This is what we’re told. So my next the decisions that are being made at a local level more question would be: what do you think would be the important to local people, then you’ll get the impact on local councillors and councils of giving strengthening of local politics because other people them unfettered power to raise revenue locally— will come forward who want to stand and take part in complete freedom, as you’ve suggested? it. I think those two things go together. But it’s the Stephen Hughes: Meaning they can invent their own same political processes that created you as MPs that taxation system and put it in place? create local councillors. It’s the same party structures Fabian Hamilton: Yes. at a local level, so you’re probably better placed than Stephen Hughes: To be honest, there are probably us— some things that we would do. I mean Howard and I would probably do something very similar, which is Q185 Chair: Makes your case even stronger, copy the continental system of charging a pound a bed Stephen. per night for anybody who comes to the area; no one Just to pick up one of the points that Chris was would notice it on their bill, probably, but it would making: it isn’t either Whitehall tells you what to do make a significant difference. What I don’t think we or Town Hall tells you what to do; if there’s more would do is say, “Oh, great, let’s double the business independence at local council level, presumably, there rates now,” because we know the impact that that would be a lot of interactivity between councils. I would have. That would drive businesses out of the happen to care very passionately about early area, so we’d be more likely to cut it and find some intervention, so if there is a way forward to improve alternative form of funding to make up the difference, cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Ev 60 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes because that would probably be a very powerful Q189 Fabian Hamilton: This inquiry is about stimulant. I don’t think you can assume that if local prospects for codification of the relationship between government had unfettered tax-varying powers they local and central government. Would codification, do would use them to a huge degree. They would take a you think, begin to reduce the economic imbalance very responsible view, because what they’re driven by between the south-east and the rest of the country? is what matters for people in their area and how we Would it, in itself, be a driver for what you’ve been deliver those benefits. That’s what makes a difference. talking about, Sir Howard, about economic growth? If they were on their own resources to do it and had Sir Howard Bernstein: It is the way in which you to make it do from within the area themselves, they’d write it down, fairly and accurately. We talked about be very careful about what taxes they raised and it before—the specific roles or the different roles that which ones they didn’t. different places have. The answer to that should be no. Stephen Hughes: I think there are things around at Q188 Fabian Hamilton: Isn’t the problem always, the moment, and I’m thinking about how one could though, that when you have local authorities or local do some of that rebalancing. They’re not necessarily areas being able to charge differential taxation, you about what the codification is, though. They’re about, get people moving to the area where there’s a tax in our context, giving us some of the levers that we advantage, for example, on a local income tax rate need to unleash some of the private sector growth that and a local purchase tax? we know is there. So we have been—and of course Stephen Hughes: That is one of those matters that cities generally have been—talking about the policy you’d have to take into account, and it also means that prospect of getting tax incremental financing in place. the areas that you gave this power to need to be More than anything, that will probably help to do carefully thought about. I think the point that we’re some rebalancing of the economy, because it will all making is that there is a big difference between enable projects to get off the ground outside London different local authorities and local authority types. that won’t work simply by private sector investment You think quite carefully about what the area might and need some public sector investment. In these be, and it would probably make more sense to do it times and conditions, you need mechanisms like that. on an economic function geography, to give that area If giving us some ability to be innovative and creative quite significant powers, and have within that about how we can drive growth is part of what happens in the codification, I would say that’s structure other organisations delivering different something that would help. But we are focused on things within that context. I don’t think you’d want to very tactical things at the moment and thinking, “Well, have every council having tax-raising powers. that’s what we want to achieve; how are we going to Sir Howard Bernstein: Can I just pick up on that? I get it, and what is in the Government’s policy menu absolutely agree with Stephen. Let’s look at the places that will help, and which things are going to work the I know most about—the big cities, Leeds, Manchester, other way?” And we ought to say, “No, that isn’t Birmingham. The absolute requirement over the next going to work; you shouldn’t do it.” I suppose that’s three, four, five years, more than ever is to drive where we spend most of our time rather than thinking, growth, and private sector job creation. We need “What’s the future of local government?” So it’s different mechanisms at our disposal, having regard to refreshing to be able to come along here and talk the fiscal position we are in, in order to connect about the broader issues. existing funding markets to growth, because we know Chair: Andrew, you were burning to come in. Are funding markets, as they stand at the moment, will not you still burning? be in a position to do that by themselves. Having Mr Turner: I’ve gone all quiet. It doesn’t matter. greater flexibility around business rate utilisation, Chair: You are just embers at the moment, but you development of new investment models—I think tax- may ignite at a later point. Then I will choose a second raising powers possibly, but I guess not in the short Andrew to come in. term—are all going to be fundamentally important in maintaining that momentum for growth, and that is in Q190 Andrew Griffiths: The whole idea of the the national interest. discussion about codifying the powers of local Andrea Hill: Could I just say, we already have some government is all about making sure that local local councils that have tax raising powers because government works better, that the services and the parishes can set precepts? So in a non-city view, from support you give to local residents are improved. Suffolk, we have over 400 parishes and town councils, Listening to you today, the kind of powers that you’re and we have some areas that are not parished or have looking for, the kind of things you want to do, the town councils at all. We don’t get people moving from ability to commission services, the ability to be free the parished areas into Ipswich or Lowestoft, which of tick boxes and answering to the Minister rather than are unparished, so that they don’t pay the extra tax. to your residents, all of those things seem to be, Local people are actually very happy paying a parish listening to the Secretary of State, things that he’s precept, because it is raised locally for specific things trying to deliver: the localism agenda of the that are going to be done in a very local area. So I Government, the idea from Andrew Lansley that he’s think you could give tax-raising powers, and it’s not giving local authorities greater powers over as drastic as perhaps people think. I agree with my commissioning, the drug strategy that was released colleagues, councils will not suddenly put up yesterday, which talks about giving local authorities enormous taxes because they have a view that things much more control over these things. Would you need to be good value for taxpayers. accept that so far the agenda of the Government seems cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 61
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes to be to give you the kind of powers that you’re down. Civil servants work to statute, so if we can have looking for? something that has a legal framework to it, it will Stephen Hughes: Howard has already given a couple change behaviour. You may not be able to win the of examples that don’t fit into that. The issue about hearts and minds, without first changing the system worklessness is a classic one, where DWP’s that makes them change their behaviour, then perhaps programmes are going through a procurement process we’ll get the hearts and minds. now, and they are being procured nationally. We have no idea what the commercial terms are, what the Q191 Chair: Could I distinguish, though, or can you incentives are, what is going to happen at a local level distinguish, between the politicians and the civil until the local packages are agreed, and then we may servants? I think no one would see me as an apologist be able to have a dialogue. for the current Government, but I think the politicians Another more specific example, which is exercising are attempting something new as a new Government: us at the moment, is that we know that one of the key they have a drive; they have new politics; they have shortages within the West Midlands is a particular the coalition; they have a number of other things. kind of high-skilled engineer. We know that there are Above all they’re coming fresh to government, private sector companies—because they’ve told us— whereas the civil servants, come what may, were there willing to invest billions of pounds in this country, two years ago, 10 years ago, and may be there in which will create thousands of jobs, if they can get a another 10 years. Do you see a distinction there? I’m supply of engineers of that sort, and if they can’t sorry, Andrew, but I think it’s an important point to they’ll go somewhere else. I don’t mean somewhere bring out. else in the UK, I mean somewhere else in the world. Stephen Hughes: There is clearly a difference. What What’s the context of that? Well, what influence do I think needs to be thought through a little bit within we have about the output of the universities, to create the Coalition Government as a whole, is the extent to courses and incentivise them to recruit students to which the policies that individual Ministers are deliver that flow of engineers? We haven’t. It’s a promoting play out with each other. There are one or national programme, and the priorities that are two occasions—I’m trying to think desperately of one delivered at a national programme in that context are off the top of my head, but perhaps my colleagues very different from the immediate economic needs of will come up with one—where they don’t quite match. our area, and that is an example where we don’t have I know part of the localisation agenda is about the commissioning power that, if we had it, would organisations other than local councils, and I don’t make a difference. think we have a problem with that in principle, but Sir Howard Bernstein: If I can carry on, on that, sometimes the policies don’t quite work out at the another hobby horse of mine. If we left it to the interface, and there’s some work needed on that. providers of training and skills, HE courses would Hopefully, that will get straightened out over the have lots of hairdressers when actually we need level next period. 3 qualifications in our economy over the next five Andrea Hill: Yes. I’ll give you an example: local years. That is what we’re being told by all the skills economic partnerships. There has been a mantra that audits. Our capacity to influence or commission skills, the new Government came in and they wanted to do is non-existent. Quite frankly, it is a major negative as away with regionalism, and we would be able to have part of our drive for private sector growth over the anything that we wanted locally in the area that made next five years. more sense to us. But there was clearly a difference Andrea Hill: I think the Government’s mood music is of view between BIS and CLG, and then we started going in the right direction, but I can’t overstress the to get, “You can have anything you like, but a LEP importance of the way in which culturally it’s being has to be bigger than one single county area.” So interpreted by Whitehall, and the way in which that plays out. I think civil servants struggle not to try and we’re back into the old culture of, “You can eat control local government, and they are struggling in anything you like so long as it’s McDonald’s.” the current changes. If I was to sit down with the Chair: Howard any comment? management team of the primary care trust in Suffolk Sir Howard Bernstein: No. and talk to them about the changes that they’re going Chair: Sorry, Andrew, please continue. through in health, they don’t sound quite like the same changes that Andrew Lansley talks about, because Q192 Andrew Griffiths: If we’re talking about they’re trying to control the transition and they’re codifying the relationship between central government trying to do it within organisational boundaries of and local government, would it also be in order for us health. So it doesn’t feel like things are coming across within that to define the relationship between local to local government. Health has a centrally managed government and its residents? The accountability transition programme now, where the people who are factor is something that clearly we would need to in health, who are managing the transition, are not the address. For instance, Stephen, in your own authority, people who are going to inherit it. Our view about there have been problems with social services and a what the health and well-being board might be about concerning case about a young vulnerable child. and how GP commissioning might work, and how we Where is the accountability there, if it’s your might integrate that with social care, is a million miles responsibility and not local government’s from how the PCT sees the transition. responsibility? When a child dies who is in your care, It is the centralising tendency of civil servants that who is responsible then? Is it the Minister? Is it you needs to be addressed in the way that we write things as the Chief Executive? Where does the buck stop? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Ev 62 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes
What can the local residents expect, and how do we Q195 Andrew Griffiths: But if you have a good define that, when a serious breakdown occurs? idea, you can sell it to them and get their buy-in? Stephen Hughes: I suppose in that particular case, it Sir Howard Bernstein: Yes, I do that all the time. I stands with the executive, which in a local authority don’t think transforming neighbourhoods should be a context is a mix at the moment between cabinet marketing exercise. I think that’s why we’re there; members and the officer corps, and it might need that’s why we’re employed as public servants, and I’m some work on that to make it right. Within local passionate that when people are operating in my place, government themselves they have developed quite a which is Manchester, we ought to be working for strong, powerful scrutiny role, which came in with the Manchester. At the moment, while there is a great deal Act. A number of things are picked up and dealt with of commitment and professionalism by lots of public in that way including in the particular case that you sector workers, we do not secure the level of traction have just referred to. Our own Council did a very we need in order to make the level of progress that thorough scrutiny of the arrangements that had been is required. put in place. The Chairman who did the scrutiny Andrea Hill: I think that is absolutely right. I think report has now been given the job of sorting it out, so you’ve hit the nail right on the head, because it perhaps you should be careful of what you wish for. shouldn’t be up to local government and chief So I think there is a range. But you are quite right: executives to have to go and sell a good local idea to our partners. The PCT acts as a franchise for central those things would need to be thought through. The government. It’s a nationalised service. They pay extent and the way in which local councils and scant regard to what local politicians want and, if officers were held to account to their local residents is anything, the relationship has been made worse by absolutely critical. It is the heart of it. health scrutiny, which has brought in an adversarial Sir Howard Bernstein: For the avoidance of doubt, arrangement where health come in and tell us what I’m very clear about that. If there has been a they’re going to do, and they humour us for a little fundamental failure by a local authority, then that while, making a few local points that they take no local authority must be held to account. In the notice of and go and do what they were going to do particular circumstances which you’ve outlined, if anyway, because they’re driven by financial targets; there were—and there have been, of course—children they’re driven by national targets. Unless the culture who died, you get independent case reviews, you get of the health system changes—which I don’t believe a very clear assessment of what has gone wrong, what the current changes go far enough to make happen— has gone right and who is responsible, and we must the culture will be that GP commissioners will also be held to account for those actions and those look to the national system. They’re part of a national activities, going forward. There is no doubt at all system. What we need is for local government to be about it in my mind. primarily about governance, not about service delivery, and about leadership of place, so there is an Q193 Andrew Griffiths: Thanks for that. Just absolute right for local government to say what an returning to what you were talking about previously, area should feel like to live in; how the services would you were talking specifically about the general power feel; what the priorities are, and that local partners— of well-being, which I think everybody recognises particularly health and police, as big statutory didn’t give you the power and the impetus to be able agencies—have to come to local government for the to act in the best interests of your residents. How do agreement of those priorities. Because then we have a you see the difference between that and the proposed basis, we have a settlement with local government, general power of competence? The suggestion is that that gives us primacy in the locality. will overcome the ultra vires problem and will give My concern about the power of general competence, you much more authority to be able to proactively act and it comes out today, doesn’t it, so we’ll see how in the best interests of your residents. Do you see that many clauses it’s— as a positive thing? Mr Chope: It’s been postponed for another week. Sir Howard Bernstein: I think the point has been Andrea Hill: We’ll see how many clauses it has made by Andrea. written in, because the more clauses it has, probably the less general it’s going to be. But it will be challenged by a legal framework which doesn’t Q194 Andrew Griffiths: What sort of things do you support an equality of relationship between central think that that will allow you to do that you can’t government and local government, and until we get currently do? something that is written down, which gives an Sir Howard Bernstein: Well, I think it will enable us equality between local government and central to tackle some of the more intractable issues around government, we’re putting sticking plasters on it. growth, which at the moment we’re perhaps on the Stephen Hughes: We will save some money on margin of legality with; it should make that clearer. lawyers, hopefully, but one of the issues that is worth But I’d go back again to the essential point I made looking at, if you go back and look at the previous earlier, that it’s still very much permissive. Having a cases where this thing has come up, is the line the general power of competence does not of itself secure judiciary always takes, which is: local authorities are the commitment and the joint working with key a body created by statute, so their mindset is only to partners in our neighbourhoods that we need to do what statute allows them to do. So the wording of transform those neighbourhoods. They can still say, the general power needs to be carefully crafted if it’s “Sorry.” not going to fall foul of that test, as has happened with cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 63
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes each previous attempt to do this. We’ve been using the have achieved all that I would want to do for well-being powers to some good effect, particularly in Manchester when our residents then decide they want the economic area. That has allowed us to do things to run their own schools. But, fundamentally, that that we wouldn’t otherwise have done. The general strategic direction is absolutely right, and how we power may take us a bit beyond and deal with some develop that neighbourhood model in a way that of the risks that keep being pushed back every time creates the real platform for articulating local need, we do try and use the general power of competence. which is very specifically focused on people in I agree with something Andrea said: that local communities, is absolutely essential to moving government has to change as well. It has to be less of forward. a direct provider of services and much more of an Stephen Hughes: We have done a plan, particularly orchestrator of different service deliveries. We are too around community assets, I think, and neighbourhood big a provider at the moment, and that does bias the working. One of the things that struck me in particular approach sometimes on particular things. We get on is, certainly in some of our more deprived areas, it’s better with our PCTs than you do, Andrea, I think, about identifying and nurturing the talent for and we’ve done some quite good work with them. Our leadership among local people, and there is a problem is more with the acute sector, and getting distinction. There is evidence to demonstrate that the them to play in a local context and think about the propensity for people to volunteer is positively related issues that are broader than simply their immediate to the average wealth of the area, so deprived areas tasks. That is sometimes extremely difficult to get suffer sometimes from people struggling to live their them to think about. lives, as opposed to helping with the wider community. One of the things that we’re looking at Q196 Andrew Griffiths: Just one final question, if I establishing—well, we have established, but in may. I suppose it is a question about double dealing with that issue—is a kind of leadership devolution, because I think one of the things that is academy, designed to identify and bring on talented happening is that power is not just passing down to people from particular backgrounds in order that they councils; for instance, with free schools, it is passing can be the people who articulate and champion those power down to the parents, and I think the closer we local areas, because that’s part of what we need as can get decision making to the people it directly local authorities, and particularly large local affects the better. Do you see other ways in which authorities. We need people from local areas to shout local authorities can pass power down to at us and tell us what they want to do; otherwise we communities? How do you see that operating, and become a bit paternalistic ourselves. how do you think that would work within codifying your powers and the relationship? Q197 Sheila Gilmore: I was interested in what you Andrea Hill: Suffolk is working quite hard on a said earlier, first of all, about not needing new tax- strategic direction that looks at divesting our service, raising powers, but do you think that if there is not a so putting them into communities; putting them into shift in the balance of holding the purse strings a lot social enterprises; transferring assets that used to be of this is not going to get very far? I don’t know if held by the council into communities, because we you’re aware of what has been happening in Scotland absolutely agree that that is the direction. We would recently, but after the last Scottish Government agree that when we are a big service provider elections, the Government announced it was going to operational delivery always takes over from strategic have a completely new relationship with local leadership, because if you have a pressing problem, authorities and give them greater freedom, ring-fenced you have to fix that problem today; if it snows again all sorts of funds, and set up a concordat with national today, we’ll be reorganising how the kids will get outcomes and local outcomes, and stuff like that. home early. That will take primacy over something We’ve now reached the stage, three and a half years that is a more strategic issue for three years hence. So in, where this Scottish Government has said, “If you I think it would be helpful to allow local government don’t perpetuate the council tax freeze and do certain to move into local governance and to bring partners other things that we want, then your cuts are going to together, for us actually to do the double devolution. be much worse than they would otherwise be. So you It is what makes sense to people and it is that balance. can get 2.9% cuts if you agree with this, 5.7% if you When somebody asked before about, “At what level don’t agree with this.” That to me comes do you have local government and how big is it?” for fundamentally down to who holds the purse strings. us, it’s the balance of having very localised assets and Now, that may or may not be about tax-raising power. services where they make sense—so, much smaller It might also be about the balance of grant. Can you than districts—and then having a larger council that comment on that? can do the leadership, the governance of place, at a Stephen Hughes: Can we swap? I mean, 5% sounds bigger level. quite good to me. To me, I think the issue is not the Sir Howard Bernstein: I agree with that. We’ve ability of local government to raise additional funds developed a very strong neighbourhood model of relative to what it already has. You have to think about services, integrated local government services, and the the context. Our council tax is just over £330 million, Police are doing their level best to replicate that in the total collection, and our gross spend is £3.5 billion. In way in which they move to neighbourhood policing. the big scheme of things it’s not the matter and it will But I have to say that the prospects of me seeing some take a big shift. It won’t just be about localisation of of our assets embraced by some of the deprived areas business rates or the freedom to raise council tax. It we have in Manchester are pretty low. I will know I will take a big shift to change that. So the bigger prize cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Ev 64 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes is about greater influence over all of the money that bear a lot of fruit for them because they’re still £1 has been spent in the area, rather than just the bits that million out of pocket every year, and nobody is get channelled through the local authority, because we coming along and saying, “You could realign it.” So can demonstrate that there are benefits to be had from you’re really talking about the responsibility for the getting connected programmes, addressing needs in budget passing. the round rather than different aspects. Sir Howard Bernstein: Basically, yes, and for the Howard pointed out earlier that the people who are avoidance of doubt, if we were made responsible for long-term unemployed are often unemployed not overseeing the deployment of funds, say where work simply because they can’t find a job but because of programmes are concerned, I am sure we would other complexities with their lives, and you have to accept very high targets, in terms of delivering people deal with all of those rather than just one. That needs into work, which is fundamental to what we want to different agencies to work together, and it needs deliver anyway. So this is not just a process that is someone to take an overview, sitting above it, to try designed for us to achieve efficiencies, even though and orchestrate the other players to play together. that is important. This also needs to be seen as a Sir Howard Bernstein: I agree. process that will be related to outcomes, which we Andrea Hill: Yes, I agree with that, and I also think will be prepared for and would need to be prepared to it’s easier to do. Because there is £5 billion that is be subject to scrutiny on. spent in Suffolk by the public sector, which from local government is 25%. That money is already there, and Q200 Sheila Gilmore: But are we not in a situation it’s not as difficult to do that as it is to say, “Let’s where our national politics is such that people— completely reverse the balance of power through whether it’s national politics in Scotland or Wales or funding,” because if you’re going to say to me, “Well, England—see themselves as almost campaigning on a Suffolk will get 26% of its income from Government lot of the issues that local government is operational grant and raise 66% locally,” I think the shift that on, so that political parties go forward on the would be required to achieve that is probably too manifesto of, “We are going to do this, this and this,” ambitious. so ultimately is that another barrier to achieving this? For example, there is a general consensus that early Q198 Sheila Gilmore: But how do you effectively intervention and doing things early for children and prevent the body that does hold the purse strings and families would be beneficial. Everybody signs up to gives the grant from ultimately saying, “Well, we want that theory. But I’m trying to think in the Scottish this done”? Do you think codification would achieve situation how the Scottish Government would feel if that? one of our 32 local authorities announced that it was Andrea Hill: If you gave local government the ability no longer going to provide or pay for nursery to influence all of the public sector money that came education, because they decided that that wasn’t into an area, it would make a fundamental shift in the particularly effective or efficient, and they would rely way that local government worked, the way that local on voluntary effort or private effort to provide it. How government saw itself and the efficiency of public do you stop the temptation of central government sector funding. The expenditure would drop. Because, coming in and saying, “You shall not do that”? at the moment, there are all sorts of duplications and Stephen Hughes: I think it comes back to what we there are very few incentives for co-location of staff, were saying earlier, that central government, clearly co-management of the staff, agreement of objectives, in the current climate, has an interest and a legitimacy and there are lots of disincentives to doing it, so about saying, “These are the outcomes that we want people fall back into their organisational boundaries. to achieve for young children.” I suppose the situation At the moment, when everybody is facing cuts—local you have at the moment, though, is that local government has a 28% cut—they retrench into their government have an obligation—in this case it’s a organisational boundaries, because that’s the bit they discretionary ability—to provide and administer can control, and people have to reach a reduced level education if they want to, but they don’t have to take of funding. We all have to set balanced budgets by the responsibility, although I think they probably will do, next financial year. We don’t have any alternative, so for the outcome. So if you place statutory obligations in the end, you will be pressed to make those savings; on local authorities to provide services, but don’t you will make them in areas where you can control place obligations on them to provide outcomes, they them. will provide the services they have to; whether they are joined up with anybody else’s services is another Q199 Sheila Gilmore: One of the barriers to matter. I think that is the point that we’re all trying to achieving some of that is still: who holds the budget? get at: it is what matters for people on the ground, So you’re talking about the budget passing. As an which is what we’re passionate about, and we think example, in my constituency there is a factory that the can only be done by joining up different service lines council has run for many years for disabled people; and redesigning them in a way that makes a better for blind people, effectively. The Council wanted to impact on the outcomes for them. But we have a close it because they have to put a subsidy in. There system that devises policy by saying, “We need this is an argument that says these people will then get service there, that service there,” without the benefits if they are made redundant, so the public mechanism for effectively connecting them together. purse isn’t going to save anything, but because there Andrea Hill: I could give you a practical example isn’t any joining up of the budgets, there’s no about children, which is children’s centres. The incentive at all to the council. That argument doesn’t Government decided not just that we wanted better cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 65
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes outcomes for nought to fives, but how those outcomes Sir Howard Bernstein: You send it to me. were to be achieved. It said, “You’ll all build Andrea Hill: That’s what you normally do, yes. children’s centres and you’ll build them in the most Sir Howard Bernstein: Just send it to us. deprived areas first.” So we built 44 children’s centres Mrs Laing: Actually, to be perfectly honest, that is in the last few years in Suffolk. We’ve started in the what I do, because— deprived communities. The Government has given us Andrea Hill: Every MP does. the money to do it, and there are some fantastic buildings, but in the deprived areas they can also be Q203 Mrs Laing: Well, exactly. Well, why do we do right next door to a brand new library, which we’ve it? Now this is a point about local democracy and who also built. Because local government has been told takes the blame. I know that I do it because, with very what to do and it has been told how to do it. It has few exceptions, where there are exceptionally good been given ring-fenced money that can only be spent and conscientious councillors with time to deal with on certain things, then it has had an army of inspectors things in my own district council, sending it on to the and regulators to come and check that we’ve done district councillor is not going to have any effect in exactly what it was that central Government told us most cases, so I do exactly what you’re saying, you to do, because Ministers think that they have to be write to the chief executive and say, “This is the held accountable for the state of well-being of every problem. Why hasn’t it been done?” and then of nought to five-year-old in the country. Now, that ought course a reply comes in that way, but where is the to be a local accountability, and if you hadn’t told us local accountability there? There isn’t any. exactly how to do it, we wouldn’t have gone in these Andrea Hill: No, I think we do understand that. I deprived areas and built lots of different facilities very think we absolutely do understand that at a local level. close to each other that don’t bring the community The chief executive is responsible for running the day- together in many ways. They separate different groups to-day organisation and we have statutory officers in the community, because the only people allowed in who help us in particular responsibilities, so the the children’s centres have to be children under the officer accountability is very clear. We’re accountable age of five. It’s a nonsense. It’s not how you get to the council as a whole, but we take the policy from effective governance in the country as a whole. the administration. Our council set policy and we have Chair: I am going to ask Eleanor to come in. One to implement it to achieve the things that they want to thing that you’ve told us, Andrea, which I think is a see achieved, but we advise them and help them with new line of inquiry, that we need to be quite careful the expertise about the best way of implementing of when we’re drafting is this general power—if it is them, and if something really dreadful happened there such a thing as a power, but certainly relationships would be some very serious conversations about with other providers in the locality—and I don’t think accountability, whether that was the portfolio holder we’ve picked that one up in the past. I think how that or the Director of Children’s Services or whether it works in codification will need some careful drafting. was the leader or the chief executive. Again, be careful what you wish for, because we’ll be Stephen Hughes: In the context you describe, which looking to you to help us out on some of those words. I suppose is commonplace, which is that there has been a service failure within legitimate expectations Q201 Mrs Laing: The point you just made about set by the elected Members, it’s the officers’ accountability is exactly what I wanted to explore. responsibility to put it right. First, do we take it from what you have said that the first time the Daily Mail does a double-page spread Q204 Mrs Laing: I entirely agree with you that about the postcode lottery, we all collectively say, officers are highly trained in what they are doing, do “Too bad. This is local government, local understand and behave accordingly. I wasn’t implying accountability and, yes, the standards of services you any criticism of the officials in local government. My get are different in one part of the country to another”? concern is about the elected representatives and who Sir Howard Bernstein: Yes. takes the blame. If there is something to be criticised, Stephen Hughes: Yes. well, let’s take the gritting of roads last week. I Mrs Laing: Yes? received piles of letters about gritting of roads. I have Andrea Hill: It’s a completely false construct, and we to say, I cannot bring myself to say to my constituents, should recognise difference and celebrate it. People “Don’t bother me about the gritting of the roads.” I choose to live in Suffolk or in Birmingham or don’t say that, I say, “I will investigate this. I’ll find Manchester because they like what Suffolk is or they out what happens,” but actually I shouldn’t be doing like what Birmingham is. They don’t want them all to that. It’s the county councillor who should be doing be the same. that. Let’s not talk about personalities. I happen to have some very good county councillors in Epping Q202 Mrs Laing: If that is the case, then we come Forest who do take this on. But I know that in one on to the other side of it, about who is accountable, part of my constituency, it will be dealt with by the who takes the blame, and where the buck stops. As county councillor while in another part, the county Members of Parliament, we all know that every week councillor will do nothing and do we have to wait for probably about 50 or 60 people write or email four—well, I suppose we do—years to the ballot box complaining about local services. Now, as a Member for the accountability to be felt? of Parliament, do we then say, “Not me, Guv, nothing Stephen Hughes: I thought you were having a recall to do with me? Here is the address of your local power. councillor”? Mrs Laing: Oh, right. That is complex. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Ev 66 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes
Q205 Chair: There is a thread here from a number party—and I don’t mean Hatton—such as the BNP, of colleagues, which is: we have Whitehall, and what which in my patch had six councillors, which is a lot, we are not going to do is replicate loads and loads of could go to 26, and took control of the council, and mini-Whitehalls. There is also a political level, which implemented BNP policies, does central Government runs alongside Whitehall, which some might say is stand back and say, “Yes, that’s what you voted for; underpowered, and certainly a political level that runs that’s what you’re stuck with”? alongside local authorities that is massively Stephen Hughes: If it’s a legal party that’s what underpowered. But, in a sense, isn’t this again a democracy says, doesn’t it? Yes. question of how we revive our political structures and Sir Howard Bernstein: Other failings, I would our political parties? It’s not a question we can solve suggest, for the reason for that. by asking officials to do things in certain ways and, in some ways, if either Government Ministers or local Q207 Tristram Hunt: Very quickly, we’ve had a government Ministers, in effect, are not fulfilling their submission from the Core Cities Group,2 which duties, officials at both levels will fill the vacuum. In suggests that what is really important—following on a sense—and maybe I’m asking Eleanor, I’m making from Sir Howard’s comments—is the economic her a witness—we have to do both. We have to do the autonomy and the power of these cities, rather than structures of local versus central and we have to also nice constitutional concordats, which are very jolly revive the capabilities of all political parties to engage but people can work their way around them. I think in genuine political strategic thinking. what you bring out, Sir Howard, in your paper, is that Andrea Hill: If I may say, I think that’s why the political power is dependent upon economic power, double devolution point is important, because one of and the Manchester model of the last 20 years has the things we’re exploring in Suffolk, as part of a been about rebuilding economic power. But strategic authority, which is much more about everything we’ve seen, in terms of the literature on community leadership than about service delivery, is this, also suggests that you gain further economic the primacy of the local member actually to build power from political autonomy and political self- bigger society within their county division, in our government. In that context, do you have an case, or ward in other cases. When that local member institutional view or a personal view, particularly for has a much bigger role and some discretion and the big cities or the city regions, on the plans for flexibility about finance in a local area and is mayoralties and mayors and the relationship between transferring assets, like: community halls, libraries, local and central government? into the local community, then there is a Sir Howard Bernstein: The views of the council are fundamentally different relationship, which I think the same as my personal views on this occasion. I’m will generate a much more active, local councillor so very clear that a mayoral model should be part of the that they’re all like the best ones. I think one of the pluralist model of local government leadership in this difficulties now is that MPs are better known than country, and whatever people might think about local councillors. The portfolio holders tend to be Manchester, or indeed other parts of Greater known, but not necessarily the ward councillors. Manchester, I think the one thing most people would Mrs Laing: Absolutely. agree is that lack of leadership has not been a Sir Howard Bernstein: Yes, can I just tell you a little problem. What has been more of a problem have been bit about what we’ve been doing in Manchester, many of the issues we’ve talked about today: do we because 10 years ago or more we moved away from have the toolkit of the right size with our ability to the traditional approach of local government— pull the right levers to drive our economies going committees and lots of papers—and I think that came forward? That for me has been the fundamental part. as a little bit of a culture shock at the time, because So I would not regard a mayoral model in Manchester what members were used to was going to committee as being remotely relevant to our particular needs at meetings with lots of papers? What we’ve tried to do the present time, but in four, five years’ time, that is start to redefine what the role of the elected member position may well change. So I would never say never. is in their own locality. I think that has become really I think we should have the ability to determine our successful, where members now see themselves as own leadership models, having regard to our needs playing a very full and active part in defining local and the circumstances at the time, and I think that priorities in terms of services, where the gaps are, and would be my position. I think that’s probably the how we work with other partners to help fill some of general view of my colleagues, but— those gaps. As I’ve said earlier, that process has come Stephen Hughes: Well, we’ve obviously had the with mixed success. But I genuinely believe that, conversation on Core Cities on more than one certainly in the work that we’ve done—and I know it occasion. The last time I think we met everyone round has been replicated elsewhere, perhaps even with the table was the same. That is the position. I think greater success—fundamentally the role of the elected member in Manchester has brought them much closer you’re right, I suppose, that there is a linkage between together to the people they serve, and that’s been a political power and economic power, but I’m not sure very positive experience. in this debate, because we haven’t seen the Localism Chair: Eleanor, quickly and then Tristram. Bill yet to see what it says. But if what you’re doing is replacing an existing governance arrangement— exactly the same powers and influence—with a Q206 Mrs Laing: Very, very quickly. Christopher different one, and nothing changing in terms of the Chope mentioned the Hatton experience. If local democracy works in such a way that an extremist 2 Ev w159 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:02] Job: 008752 Unit: PG04 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o004_mark_Corrected ev4 09-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 67
9 December 2010 Sir Howard Bernstein, Andrea Hill and Stephen Hughes structures, the power and the influence that we were degree of permanency. I think that is quite important, talking about earlier, then it won’t make any because it would be a great shame to do a lot of work difference. Okay, one person, you can see who it is. to redress the balance of power between central and You’re just as likely to get someone who is not able local government, and get it written down, and then to do that as you are to get someone who is. There find that it was overturned fairly quickly afterwards. are plenty of examples of both. So the critical issue is I’m very grateful too that you picked up the the influence of the entity as a whole, and what importance of the relationship of other major public decisions they are able to make. The more important sector bodies, because I think that cultural side needs the decisions they are able to make, the more seriously to be addressed as importantly. people will get involved and the better the overall Stephen Hughes: Yes, I think we would all probably governance will be. agree with that. That is at the heart of it. I want to go back to a couple of points you made earlier. One was Q208 Chair: Presumably, one of the powers to that if we’re on a journey, let’s ensure that what we’re codify it might well be the right of local government codifying and writing down represents the destination areas themselves to decide the way they wish to be rather than the stop along the way. I think that would led, the way they wish to operate an electoral system be something we would all want. There is an of their choice, whether they want a mayoralty or opportunity here. To go back to the point I made right whether they want the old committee basis, that they at the beginning, I think there needs to be a might be themselves capable of deciding something recognition that local politicians are passionate and like that. care about their area, and can be trusted to do that Stephen Hughes: I think they probably would, yes. job, and that what ultimately matters in the effective Sir Howard Bernstein: I think they would. delivery of services is who has the responsibility for Chair: I think that’s what you call a leading question. spending the money—the commissioning part of it, Tristram Hunt: No, that’s fine. and not necessarily the service delivery. Chair: Are you done? Sir Howard Bernstein: Just one final point from me. Tristram Hunt: Yes. I agree with the points both Andrea and Stephen have Chair: Andrew, did you want to come back in on made. Whatever we bring forward in terms of a anything? Eleanor? I know I cut you short. framework, I think needs to do two things: one, to be Mrs Laing: That’s all right, thank you. quite explicit about what we see as the role and the central functioning of local authorities in shaping and Q209 Chair: Okay. Well, I don’t know—we have six creating places—I think that is very important—and minutes, it’s not very long—but whether you’d like to also to recognise that there are different layers of have a minute or two to wind up from your various devolution or collaboration. It is around what works perspectives, just to remind you, and my Committee in an economic functioning area, that is labour colleagues, this is about the codification of the markets; what works at an individual district level, relationship between local government and central and what works at neighbourhood level and directly government and you have very helpfully raised a to people themselves, and you get a different approach number of questions. The question we had been by applying that logic. Thank you very much. I hope thinking about before was about how you entrench you found it useful. such a code once it’s written, and what might be in Chair: Normally, the process is that we will go away that code. Again, we’ll be open with you: as a brand at some point and write a report, having heard all the new Committee we want to do this job thoroughly, we witnesses. I’m just giving a little twist to that, in that want to do it properly. You’re all very experienced I’m giving the witnesses some homework to do as people and have made it clear you’ve made your well: now you’ve heard what we’ve had to say—and proposals in other forums in the past. We’d like you it’s very obvious you’ve read the evidence of other to come to this with a fresh eye and help us come up people too—we would be very interested in receiving with something useful, because to pick up some of the your views on, having gone through that experience, things that Andrew was raising, I think we are at a if there were to be codification, how it would shape good moment right now. I think lots of good things up, and what would be the key things. Again, it’s have come through in the last few months, and I speak helping my Committee to come to a useful conclusion from an obvious position of not supporting the current and I’m toying with the idea of before a final report Government, but I will say that, and I will happily say maybe doing almost a Green Paper style thing that I it on the record. So defining where we are at this can discuss with colleagues on the Select Committee moment through a code, might well be something that and then possibly throw out again, so that we can get it is a very opportune time to do. That is our this absolutely the way that it works for both central background. I don’t know whether you’d like any and localovernment and for local government too. closing remarks? Thank you all for coming. Sir Howard, Ms Hill, Mr Andrea Hill: I think there is just one thing that I read Hughes, thank you very much indeed. You’ve been in some of the previous evidence, which was from expert witnesses and we look forward to continuing Professors Jones and Stewart, about the sense of a our relationship with you. Thank you very much. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 68 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
Thursday 16 December 2010
Members present: Mr Graham Allen (Chair)
Sheila Gilmore Simon Hart Andrew Griffiths Mr Andrew Turner ______
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Dr Bill Moyes, Institute for Government, and Jessica Crowe, Centre for Public Scrutiny, gave evidence.
Q210 Chair: Thank you very much for coming. Based on our experience and on the work that we have Unfortunately, we are very light on the ground today done so far at the institute, there is a prior stage of for various unavoidable reasons. Nonetheless, this is building a political consensus of what codification a serious evidence session for us. We are feeling our should contain, what it should be about and what it way towards what a constitutional settlement might be should be for. That was one of the great difficulties between local government and central Government. we faced with foundation trusts. There simply was not We know that many people have been round this field the political consensus that said, “Yes, hospitals can before, but I want you to treat us as novices. What is be autonomous, and much of what they do need not probably boring and familiar to you is actually be political in nature. It need not be subject to political unusual and novel for us because we are a brand new control.” Even though the legislative framework for Select Committee. We have been set up to look at foundation trusts was quite robust and good, and political and constitutional reform, and I think you perfectly capable of being operated, it didn’t stand the might agree that this is a really good moment to be real stress that happens in a crisis because it was not doing so. underpinned by a political consensus, so we would Our colleagues on the Communities and Local advocate that starting point. A good deal of work Government Committee are looking more specifically needs to be done to develop broad political support at localism, so we shall not stray into their territory. for the concept of codification and to define its Ours is a little more stratospheric. Nonetheless, it will purpose and how it would be used. On the basis of be very practical, because we are at something of a that, assuming agreement can be reached, you can high water mark with the Government seeking to push then build a structure that works. powers to local authorities. What the Lord giveth, the Our perspective—this is my final comment—would Lord may taketh away unless we solidify or embed be that the real value in codification is not so much that settlement in some way. We want to pick your the definition of rights and responsibilities in the brains particularly on the accountabilities of such Concordat, which is interesting but only takes one so matters. far, but might be to help the citizen to understand who Would you like to open up by speaking for a couple is accountable when things go wrong and to whom of minutes about your general views on these issues? they go when they have ideas about how things could Bill Moyes: My name is Bill Moyes, and I am get better. That’s a very practical approach to speaking on behalf of the Institute for Government. codification, but it seems to us to be one that the Thank you very much for inviting me to talk to the Committee might want to think a lot about. I can say Committee, Chair. I am an associate at the institute, more about that later, if that helps. working on a project relating to how ministerial accountability works in practice, and how it might Q211 Chair: There’s only so much that a Select have to change in an era of greater devolution of Committee could do in terms of building consensus. responsibility for organising and managing public What I would like to do is take that to its optimal services. I am interested in that from the perspective level. We talked very briefly about this before you of my previous role, which was the regulator of NHS came in, and I would like the Committee itself to foundation trusts. We had a legislative framework in agree something sensible internally, and then interact which the powers and duties of foundation trusts were with Government—perhaps even informally—to see not subject to the directional control or influence in whether there is something where all parties can any way—theoretically, at least—of the Secretary of agree. As for whether it needs to go wider than that, State. I suspect it does, but in terms of what we can do, I In practice, my experience was that at times of great think that would be the maximum position for us. stress when there was a real service failure, We’d be very keen to act in a way in which Select irrespective of the statutory framework, Ministers felt Committees have perhaps not traditionally acted in obliged to get involved. I am referring to the Mid order to facilitate that consensus. I hope that that Staffordshire hospital problem where there were really meets part of what you were saying. serious service failures. My starting point would be to Jessica Crowe: At the Centre for Public Scrutiny, we say that the institute probably would support the certainly see this, as you said at the start, as a very concept of codification and, if codification were to timely enquiry. There are lots of opportunities at the happen, we would advocate enshrining it in legislation moment to progress the debate about localism and in some form. balance. I would echo what Bill Moyes just said about cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 69
16 December 2010 Dr Bill Moyes and Jessica Crowe the need for some prior work before we can codify. It arrangements, they are required to set out to the shouldn’t be codification on the status quo. There Secretary of State how they can prove that it will be needs to be some clarity—particularly from the effective, efficient, open and transparent. We think perspective of local government—to clarify the that should be the case whatever the governance purpose and role of local government, as distinct from arrangements, and not just to the Government but local administration, so that it’s very clear what the outwards to local people. That would pick up on the purpose of an organisation at the local level is. It has point that the Government have made since taking a democratic mandate, as do national Government, office about moving from bureaucratic accountability and its purpose needs to be determined. We need to to democratic accountability. If that is the case, it is get that clear before there can be codification. One of slightly odd that less is said in the Localism Bill about the weaknesses in the debates about this to date is that the role of local councillors as democratically elected there hasn’t tended to be consensus across people in helping to achieve that aim. We think that Government, which Bill Moyes talked about, about there could be ways of strengthening and enhancing the extent and nature of any devolution and that point. localisation of powers. I don’t think you can do that The Bill also provides an opportunity to pick up on until it’s very clear what the purpose and role of those the need to get that cross-Government consensus. In local bodies is, so we would say that there needs to the area in which we are most technically interested, be discussion about that role and purpose first. concerning the role and future of overview and Also, from our perspective as an organisation that scrutiny functions, the Bill has pulled together all the promotes the importance and value of non- different bits of legislation from the past 10 years that executives—whether it’s Select Committees at have been connected to an expansion of scrutiny national level, overview and scrutiny committees in powers for local councillors. However, it does not local government, non-executive directors of health really do anything to tidy that legislation up and make trusts, charitable trustees or others—whose role is to it consistent. challenge and question the executive, it’s important We also have the recent response to the Government that there are very clear accountabilities. If power is health paper produced by the Department of Health. devolved and there is clarity about the role of local It recognises the role of health scrutiny and the organisations in taking decisions, it must also be clear important contribution that that can make to how they will be held to account for those decisions. democratic accountability, and indeed it expands those I know we are going to explore the issues of powers. That is not reflected consistently across other accountability later, but we think that that has to be a areas. I think that the Localism Bill is a real really important part of the discussion about the role opportunity to try and get that consistency and set out and purpose of people with power at local level. We some core principles need to be clear about how they are held to account. Bill Moyes: I agree. I think that this is a good time to Building on work that we did earlier this year entitled start working in this area. The new Government have, Accountability Works!, which was part of our very helpfully, raised a lot of questions about the submission, there are three principles that could extent to which the state is centralised and the extent usefully be explored and somehow set out in a code: to which it is possible for people at local level to take accountability, transparency and involvement. Those charge of their own services, run them properly and are three core principles; there may well be others and have things tailored to their requirements, rather than that would be part of the debate, but for us, those are to the requirements of Whitehall and Westminster. three really important principles that need to be However, I think there is countervailing pressure, clarified in any codification. which is the Government’s clear determination to maintain financial control and keep very heavy Q212 Chair: I would just put it to both of you that a pressure on public expenditure, for obvious reasons. number of witnesses have been very clear on the Therefore, one will have to consider carefully how question of timing and the fact that this is a particular those two forces will balance out. Once you start moment. There is a new Government and a view trying to codify responsibilities and roles, you quickly about new politics. Certainly in terms of political get into control mechanisms and questions about drive and rhetoric, the Government talk about funding, such as who is responsible for raising funds, devolving power, so this seems like a good moment. who controls funding and spending, and so on. This What is your view on that? We could obviously take might not be the best time to be exploring devolution five years to get this absolutely right, but I think that in those areas, but the time is certainly right to start the time will have gone by that point. opening up the concept of codification. Jessica Crowe: There is an obvious moment now with the Localism Bill that has just been published. It is a Q213 Simon Hart: Thank you. I am slightly lacking huge Bill, and it will need to be quite focused. There a voice at the moment, you may be relieved to hear. are some points within it where the sorts of things that May I just go back to one point you made, Jessica? we are interested in at the Centre could be enhanced. You drew a distinction between local government and One of those things concerns local government local administration. Before I ask my main question, constitutions, and there is a section in the schedules can you explain precisely what you meant by that? about local governance arrangements. What is striking Jessica Crowe: I think that it’s entirely right that from first reading—it is a very long Bill, and I have national Governments have set out things they want not digested it all yet—is that if councils come up to do—that they have a mandate to do—and that they with some completely new form of local governance have a national prerogative. Foreign policy and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 70 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
16 December 2010 Dr Bill Moyes and Jessica Crowe defence is the obvious one, but even in domestic I was talking about building that kind of consensus, policy there will be certain priorities that a national rather than just a consensus across party political Government will have set out that they want to boundaries. achieve. Jessica Crowe: I would agree with that. That was the It is important to recognise that local government has point I was trying to make about needing this cross- also been elected with local mandates to do things. Government consensus. Different Whitehall One of the things that could be explored, through a Departments need to have a clear understanding of discussion around the idea of codifying that what they mean by devolution and localism, because relationship, would be clarifying the boundaries there are very different definitions—possibly even between the what and the how. Even where national within Departments. That is the important thing. Government have set out what they wish to achieve, It is given particularly sharp focus by the situation it is really important to recognise that local that you describe with the additional layer of Welsh government, with its understanding of the needs of devolution and it is similar in Scotland. At local level, its local communities and its mandate through being it has long been the case that there may be a different elected as well, should be able to determine how those local political control from a national. priorities are delivered, and not be driven totally down a very tightly controlled route. It is about recognising Q215 Simon Hart: May I follow that question with mandate and local knowledge. one more? Although there is probably evidence that suggests that the wider public are not particularly Q214 Simon Hart: That is helpful, because it leads happy with the status quo, do you think there is nicely on to the next question, which the Chair has evidence out there that suggests that what is been very patient in allowing me to ask in previous proposed—either by way of the Localism Bill or evidence sessions, because it is quite a parochial one through codification—would suddenly excite the in that it applies in Wales. Wales has this curious public as far as this topic is concerned? I sometimes situation of having a Lib Dem-Conservative wonder whether we are slightly overplaying the theory Administration here; a Plaid Cymru and Labour that local people want to be involved in all of this Administration in Cardiff; an independent council in decision making, as most of the local people I know the particular area in which I live; and then, to further are only too delighted for someone else to take the the pleasure, a national park authority, which has a difficult decisions so that they can be blamed when certain amount of democratic credibility and quite a things go wrong—or that we can be blamed, as a big say, one might argue, in the local governance of general rule. the area. The concept of devolution is one that I would You mentioned the word “consensus”, Bill. I wonder personally endorse. Obviously, it depends on how you whether, in these circumstances, consensus is possible interpret it, but I just wonder sometimes if we via codification when you have that strange cocktail overplay the theory that everyone at ground level is of political interest. I wonder whether devolution in determined to get involved with the minutiae of that context is seen to achieve either the previous or decision making on some quite tedious topics. Have we got that right, do you think? the current Government’s aims. I would be interested Bill Moyes: There is one piece of evidence that I to hear what you thought. would offer in relation to foundation trusts. Chair: I am going to call Bill a little bit more, because Foundation trusts have members who are drawn from I know he has to leave us at 10.30. the public, the staff and the patients they serve. Today, Bill Moyes: I will be very brief. there are 1.7 million members of foundation trusts. Chair: No, please take your time. The members elect governors, who then appoint the Bill Moyes: When I talk about political consensus, it board. There are something like 4,500 governors and is less about party politics than about a consensus when by-elections occur the turnout rate varies from between those who operate politically at the local very low to about 55%. Although they do not have a level and those who operate politically at the lot of powers in relation to hospitals, they have some national level. quite focused powers, such as appointments, removals In some areas there are the bones of that consensus. and so on. An awful lot of people are very keen to People regard local authorities as essentially play a part in overseeing the running of the local responsible for ensuring that the bins get emptied, and hospital. so on, and they regard national Government as having a broad responsibility for protecting the environment. Q216 Simon Hart: I will shut up, I promise. That is So there are two functions there that are at opposite an interesting point. It raises questions about whether ends of the poles—and people sort of recognise that. public interest varies, depending on what aspect of When it comes to things like education, I don’t think local provision we are talking about. I can well there is yet that strong consensus that we all understand that, in terms of health, there may be a understand the role of Whitehall and the role of the higher degree of public involvement than in perhaps local authority. This has not been the subject of a great some other issues. deal of debate recently. I don’t think the highlighted Jessica Crowe: I think that’s right. You have hit on it. sentence is what I said. I don’t have a note of exactly It is about the topic and also the timing. The evidence the words I used. I think it was something like from local scrutiny inquiries is that public “This has not been the subject of a great deal of involvement and interest vary widely from people debate recently.” being quite happy to leave the technical examination cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 71
16 December 2010 Dr Bill Moyes and Jessica Crowe and cross-examining of finance officers over criterion that one has to adopt as to when does the performance and financial information. They might be Secretary of State say, “I’m just not the right person less interested in that, although some will be and to take this decision and therefore I’m not going to be possibly more as more information gets published in accountable for it”? At that point, my view would be raw data form, but pick the right topic that is that you start to work out how local can that decision exercising public concern and you can have hundreds become. Can it become very local or does it have to of people. be taken at some kind of regional level? That is how Anybody who has tried to implement parking controls I think I would approach the answer to your questions. will know that people are very interested in who gets to park on their street. It really depends on the topic, Q218 Mr Turner: So we’ve got two levels at least but also the way in which people can get involved. It is about setting out a clear expectation that those with once we get away from national? power will make their decisions public, will set out Bill Moyes: In some services like health care, yes. how they intend to be influenced and how much they There are some kinds of health care where you have are willing to be influenced, and then make it as easy to look at populations of 1 million or 5 million, rather as possible for people to get involved, if they want to. than 250,000. It might be a slightly old-fashioned view, but I think that there is an aspect of class to this. Often we expect Q219 Mr Turner: Or 110,000. people to get involved in things like the regeneration Bill Moyes: Whatever. Yes. and improvement of their housing estate. That is really Chair: Is that true? about giving them a decent place to live, and they have to go to tenants’ meetings to achieve it, whereas Q220 Mr Turner: The problem is that if you are people who live in the very nice street next door have getting to the point now where we might have to start that as a matter of right due to their income and talking about changes, the opportunity will have gone. position in life. We should not expect people to have It’s got to be done within six weeks, eight weeks or 12 to get involved in order to get a certain level of decent living, but we must make sure that when it is weeks. It really seems to be me to be urgent because important their voices are heard and they can interact Governments change their views. Do you agree with with the elected representatives who have a that? responsibility to make the decisions. That can be quite Bill Moyes: I am not sure I do because I think the difficult, and the representatives must be clear about issues are more complex than can be solved with that how they can be influenced by the public, when the kind of rapidity. As I said earlier, I come at the public wish to. question of codification from the perspective of Chair: I am going to call Andrew next and then managing accountability. The last time that Parliament Sheila, but will my colleagues direct their questions looked at this was 1997 when it concluded that particularly at Bill? Thankfully, Jessica will be with Ministers should be responsible for anything and us a little longer. everything that was done or not done by their Department and its agencies. So the parliamentary Q217 Mr Turner: The two matters that have really position—the formal position—remains that Ministers struck people in my constituency have been the can be called to account for anything and everything. possible closure of a hospital, which drew 60,000 My experience is that if you ask a Department, “What people to sign a petition, and of being one consistency is your Minister accountable for?”, they do not know rather than one and a bit, which has drawn 17,000 and they assume that it is for anything and everything. signatures. Which of those is local, and which of those That concept of accountability then drives, in my is national? Which have people no right to be involved experience, a desire on the part of Ministers to be in? More to the point, are any of them local at the informed and to be involved and to have elements of moment because, as far as I know, both those things control of information and so on. Those are very deep- are subject to decisions at the centre? seated attitudes in Whitehall and Westminster which, Bill Moyes: The questions that I would pose in depending on how codification might happen, are response and the criteria I would adopt in looking at simply not consistent with detailed codification of the that kind of question is to say where do we think that respective responsibilities of central and local the Secretary of State should be the decision taker government. The process of negotiating the and should be accountable? Where do we think the devolution settlements in Scotland and Wales didn’t decisions can be taken at a more local level happen quickly. Those were very long, prolonged, legitimately and accountability can operate at a more complex exercises but they have produced a lasting local level? settlement. So my encouragement to the Committee I would probably say that on the closure of a would be that if you are embarking on the hospital—depending on how big a hospital it is—it is examination of codification it will not produce a much more for those who commission and deliver conclusion quickly. health care to work out what is safe for patients; what is cost effective; what kind of organisation can they deliver best clinical care in; and what kind of Q221 Mr Turner: Just as a last question, are organisation is too small and too restricted for them Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland national or to operate properly. A lot of those questions are much local? more technical than political in nature. There is that Bill Moyes: It depends on the issue. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 72 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
16 December 2010 Dr Bill Moyes and Jessica Crowe
Q222 Mr Turner: The trouble is we are not getting calls someone to account and ensures that change anywhere, are we? I am not criticising you, but we happens and so on. just aren’t getting anywhere. For different services, different mechanisms are Bill Moyes: But it reflects the fact that services are needed. The Government are now concluding, in the not homogeneous and uniform. Different services case of foundation trust hospitals, for example, that have different characteristics. the governors will be the mechanism that will call the board of the hospital to account. That raises a set of Q223 Mr Turner: But people aren’t going to wait. questions about how those governors—members of We really have two possibilities. We have the national, the public, patients and staff—get some kind of by which I mean UK, or the local—at some level. legitimacy in calling to the board to account. How do There is more opportunity in England, I suspect, than they ensure that they are actually acting on behalf of there is in Scotland or Wales, because they are less the population served by the hospital? There are a lot inclined to hand power over to the really local people. of interesting questions, which I don’t think at the I’m afraid we are not getting anywhere. moment there are lots of pat answers to, but they are Jessica Crowe: May I try to help? I think Bill is right. worth debating, because I do not believe that having It probably will not move everywhere for everything the Secretary of State responsible for everything in very rapidly, but there are some opportunities with Westminster and Whitehall is any longer a codification to set out some principles. One of the satisfactory model. things that you’re considering is the European Charter of Local Self-Government, and article 4 of that says, Q225 Sheila Gilmore: You mentioned Scotland and “Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, Wales. While the devolution settlement does seem to in preference, by those authorities which are closest have resolved most of the accountability issues, the to the citizen.” If that was adopted, accepted and had interesting thing is that it hasn’t changed, in any way, some legislative force—I don’t think it is broadly the relationship between the new national accepted at the moment for the reasons that Bill Governments—the devolved Governments—and local outlined—it would require authorities and those government. If anything, we might be seeing greater exercising power at some sort of higher level to set centralisation in Scotland, which was perhaps out why they intended not to exercise it at a level illustrated last week with the resignation of the closer to the citizen than they were. It doesn’t take Transport Minister for not managing to clear all the away the potential for different decisions to be taken snow all over the country. There has been no trickle- differentially at higher levels, but it would require down effect. I don’t know if you have a view on that. people to justify it. If you started from that Bill Moyes: I must admit that that would be my presumption, and you had that with some force, then observation. As someone who used to work in the if decisions were going to be made on different issues Scotland Scottish Office and who lived, for a large at different times in different ways by other agencies part of my life, in Edinburgh, my observation would higher up, whether at UK national level, or Welsh or be that the devolution settlement has certainly led to Scottish or some other level, they would have to a transfer of responsibility and accountability from justify it. That would also apply to local authorities. London to Edinburgh and, although I observe it only Local authorities would have to justify why they from afar—not necessarily from Edinburgh to should do it and not some more neighbourhood or Stornoway or Inverness or anywhere else—. That has community-based thing. still to be worked at out and debated. I think, to come Chair: Unfortunately, we are going to have to move back to the Chair’s introduction, we are probably at a on. Sheila, do you have some questions for Bill time when there is an appetite to debate these things. specifically, please? Just five minutes. I’m not feeling that there’s a settled view in the country about how accountability should operate, but Q224 Sheila Gilmore: In terms of accountability, do I don’t think any longer that there’s satisfaction with you think that the diffusion, as is perhaps being the idea that it all has to come to a pinnacle in this suggested to some extent, and profusion of providers building. and so on creates particular challenges for accountability? Q226 Chair: Bill, you have to leave us, I believe. Bill Moyes: Yes it does. If you take the position of Bill Moyes: I’m afraid that I do. the Secretary of State being accountable for everything, it’s very easy, because, at some point, if Q227 Chair: I’m so sorry about that. We would have an issue is big enough and serious enough, it will end loved to have carried on talking to you. Perhaps what up being raised in Parliament and Ministers will need we can do is send you some of the things that are information, and from that will flow control outstanding, because we didn’t manage to cover mechanisms, change or whatever. It is much more everything. We wish you well in your work and hope complicated, I think, in a diffused system to be that we can see that at the appropriate time. absolutely clear about who is accountable and who is Bill Moyes: Thank you very much for inviting me. If responsible for what, about how that accountability I can help further, do please ask. works and about how the dissatisfied user of a service Chair: That would be wonderful. Thank you, Bill. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 73
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Simon Parker, New Local Government Network, Jessica Crowe, Centre for Public Scrutiny, and Sir Simon Milton, Greater London Authority, gave evidence.
Q228 Chair: Just to kick us off, Simon—I will refer The other issue—I think that Bill alluded to this to you as Simon, and Sir Simon Milton as “Sir earlier—is that it seems strange to try to codify a Simon”, just to make it simple for Members, as we’re relationship between the locality and the centre, and a only Members of Parliament, you know—will you role for the locality, in a week in which we have just make a few opening remarks and give us your view in seen what is perhaps the biggest shake-up of those general on some of the things before the Committee? relationships in, I would argue, local government Simon Parker: Of course. I will try not to go over too history—certainly in a generation. Anyone who comes much of the ground that you have already heard about, before this Committee and says they can tell you what although I agree with much of what has been said. local government will look like and describe the role One of the things that we talk about a lot at the New it will play in five years’ time is a shyster. No one Local Government Network, which is the think-tank knows that. It is about to change very dramatically that I run, is the idea of what it would take to make and we need to bear that in mind. localism sustainable. Clearly, as the Committee has If we are to codify a relationship, we have to know suggested, we have a spurt of localist energy right what that relationship is. I would want that now. How do we make sure that that becomes relationship to be decisively more localised, and I embedded in the way in which England in particular would want the balance of power to be shifted does business? We have heard some of the conditions decisively and sustainably in favour of the locality. I that would lead to a sustainable localist settlement. think there is some more campaigning and discussion One of those is clearly some degree of political to be done around that, and I would see the consensus. Let’s not kid ourselves that that currently constitutional codification as a result of that process. exists—we don’t have the full range of political That doesn’t mean that we have to be inactive now— parties signed up to a more local way of doing we could even set a date for a referendum on it—but business. To some extent, we would need that. I think it is a debate that we need to have as a nation about how we want to structure ourselves and what Where I would go slightly further than Bill and Jess the rules of the game should be. is that I would like to bring the public into this as One of the things that strikes me about the Swedish well. I think that we need the public on board. The constitution—I am sure you will have heard about this public—again, the Committee has hinted at this—are before—is that one of the starting points for the not yet convinced localists. I think they are Swedes is that power proceeds upwards from convincible, but if we look at a lot of the polling data, individual and communities to Government. I am an we see that they have very mixed views about the enthusiastic believer in that principle, and I don’t quality and responsiveness of some local services. I think that’s how Governments in this country have think we need to have that debate. behaved. We need to shift the power and then As part of that sustainable settlement, there is also a recognise that the power has shifted. debate to be had about finance. We have touched on that as well. I think it is very important to talk about Q229 Chair: That is helpful. Sir Simon, do you want making local government much more financially self- to say a few words to help kick us off? sufficient. I can see that there is a real attraction in the Sir Simon Milton: Thank you. I am currently Deputy idea that once you have had a discussion about how Mayor of London, so I work in regional government. you put that sustainability in place, you would try to I hasten to add that I am an appointee rather than an codify that. The question that I would want to throw elected politician—I gave that up after 20 years in into the debate, which seems a very important one, is: local government. Before I took on my current job, I do we think a constitutional codification is a way of was chairman of the Local Government Association driving change or of recognising change that is and I signed the notorious Concordat between local already in the process of occurring? It seems to me and central Government for the then Secretary of that constitutional change is probably more effective State, Hazel Blears. That is sort of an interesting bit as the latter—as a way of amplifying change that is of background that you might want to go into later. already occurring. In that sense, I want to raise two The interesting point for today’s debate is that the issues that will be interesting for me to discuss—and, Greater London Authority, which is unique—it is the I hope, for you. only regional tier of government that is going to exist First, where is that public debate? How do we get the and it has a directly elected component, so it is public involved in this debate? How do we convince democratically accountable—is probably the closest the public that being more involved and engaged is a we have to a codified level of government in this precondition of a better way of doing government in country, because we are governed by the GLA Act, this country? As I say, I think they are convincible. I which was passed in 1999. That was, at the time— wonder whether we think that the goal is to see and I think still is—the longest piece of legislation localism and devolution not merely as an elite passed by Parliament since 1935. It sets out very exercise in shifting power and accountability clearly what the roles, responsibilities, duties, structures, but as a genuine popular shift. Should a functions and powers of that tier of government are. codification be subject to a referendum? I think that is Two of its key sections are sections 30 and 31. Section an interesting question; it would certainly guarantee 31 explicitly spells out the things that we are not that we have popular buy-in. empowered to deal with because they are the cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 74 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton responsibility of other parts of government, it’s the one that the local authority happens to want to principally local government. So that might be an provide you with. interesting example of the fact that it can be done, but But equally, I worry about incoherence, community it was the longest piece of legislation, which suggests rights and strategic co-ordination, and I think that if that if you’re trying to do that on a wider level, it you don’t have a strong local authority and strong would be an incredibly complex job. local democracy, you don’t have a way of managing some of the difficult trade-offs. With setting up free Q230 Sheila Gilmore: I would like to pursue further schools, I came across an example the other day in a what I have said previously. There are a number of county council where someone wants to save a local different agendas going on here, which may or may school and turn it into a free school, which means that not be contradictory. One agenda is the marketisation probably there won’t be enough kids to keep the two of services, in the sense that individual choice is seen neighbouring schools open. It’s hard to work out how as a form of accountability. In the 1980s, I was the market balances that out, so local democracy involved when the first school boards were set up in presumably becomes a very important part of the Scotland, with parental choice of schools. There was brokering role in that. a theory of accountability there but, in practice, If your point is that strong local democracy is having a choice of schools didn’t necessarily give you irreplaceable in all this, I agree, and I don’t know involvement in the curriculum. You could perhaps say, whether the current set of reforms guarantees that, but “I like that school better than that school,” but there part of the challenge for local government over the was no ability to say, “I would like my local school next few years is to reinvigorate and reinvent what it to be doing this.” All these different kinds of layers means to provide local democratic leadership. become quite individualised, and I am not sure how Sir Simon Milton: I think that there’s a difference that delivers accountability. between how you can get redress as a citizen if you’re I was also thinking about the notion that by publishing dissatisfied with the quality of a service you might everything that a local council is spending over a receive, and deciding on the structure and quantum of certain figure, individuals will somehow be able to service that might be needed. Going back to Mr make that local authority accountable. I am not quite Turner’s example of the hospital closure, it’s one thing sure how that is meant to work from an individual who should decide whether you should have a hospital perspective. Doesn’t accountability, as some accept, in that particular location, and another whether you have to be collective? are satisfied with the waiting times to get into that Simon Parker: Gosh. I am happy to kick off on that. hospital. You can see how, as a citizen, you might find I think it’s a really important question. Clearly, for the it easier, and it might be more appropriate, to have more power to get redress for things you’re not happy coalition Government, devolution is not simply about, but the question about the location of the devolution to local authorities, but devolution in lots hospital has to be taken within the wider context of of different ways to individuals. I think in some ways the strategic delivery of services. we might want to question whether “localism” is the This is something that we experience quite a lot in right word for what is happening at the moment. It London—in what I’m doing now—where you have a might partly be localism, but a lot more of it is about two-tier planning system. The Mayor of London has decentralisation. the ability to get involved in certain types of planning It seems that, in the impact of what it is doing, the decision—strategic planning applications—and in coalition is a disciple of Joseph Schumpeter. This is effect he gets involved or gets the chance to be creative destruction. The idea is that if we create lots involved in something like 0.3% of all planning of different accountability mechanisms—schools are applications in London. It is a small number, but they accountable in one way and hospitals in another—we will obviously be the most significant ones. We’ve empower communities much more to take on developed this idea of things that are local to responsibility for running things themselves, and that London—in other words things that are so significant if we shake all that up, poorly performing services that they affect, or have the ability to affect, the will die off and new ones will grow up. One of the success or the competitiveness of London as a whole. things that is difficult for those of us who worked on We feel, therefore, that it’s appropriate for the Mayor local government policy under the last Administration to have the ability to influence, and indeed in some is that they had nothing but vision—there were tons cases simply to take the decision himself, rather than of visions for the way that localities should work. I it being done at a local level. There are always going don’t think the current Government have a clear vision to be examples like that when, for strategic reasons, for what local government should look like in the the nearest place in the chain where a decision can be future. I think the philosophy is essentially that if you taken is not the local one but higher up. shake up everything around local government, local Jessica Crowe: The point you make is absolutely government itself will change or become irrelevant right. There are many different forms of over time. accountability, and that is what our Accountability I would agree with you that individual accountability Works! research says. But what we’ve seen, perhaps and market-based forms of accountability are in the recent past, is more of a hierarchy, with some probably very good ways to ensure responsiveness of forms of accountability being more important than services to the individual. That is to be applauded. others because they have perhaps more clout. We saw Rights of exit for people are also to be applauded. You a very centralised regulatory and inspection system shouldn’t be stuck with a rubbish service just because around performance management and targets, and cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 75
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton meeting those central targets was more important, have refused to sign. But the pressures at the time arguably, than doing things that local people wanted, were that this was something that had to be delivered because there was a kind of penalty. But we would and it was. The truth is that it was a Concordat around say that there needs to be more of a web in which the state of local-central relations at a point in time. It these different forms of accountability interact with was a snapshot, which is now completely obsolete. It each other. The relationships are clear but there isn’t was all about local area agreements and how those necessarily always a hierarchy between them. were going to work. Of course, that has all been But what you need alongside clear mechanisms of junked now, so it is a completely worthless document, accountability is the transparency and the involvement which nevertheless was also more honoured in the as well. Those three things are all part of our breach than not. So I am not sure where it got us. democracy, and some bits of it might be about more Simon Parker: I quite agree on the Concordat. It is representatives and elected representatives making much less a kind of constitutional codification of the strategic decision, in the way that Sir Simon outlines. relationship than a statement of the relationship that a Some of it might be about making sure that members particular Government at a particular moment in time of the public can influence those decisions and get wanted to have. That is reflected in the language involved to the degree that they want to, but you have around LAAs and the like. But more broadly, trying these three very clear principles that underpin that to codify relationships seems somewhat troublesome system of representative democracy. to me. For instance, I think the Concordat says that central Government will consult local government Q231 Sheila Gilmore: One thing that I’ve asked appropriately. Well, how would we decide whether people in some of our previous sessions is whether that had been done enough? What would happen if it the fundamental issue of power still lies with the purse was decided that not enough consultation had taken strings? To talk about codification is one thing, and place? That seems quite difficult to me. that might strengthen the position of local authorities However, one point that would be very useful to in relation to all sorts of other vague accountability, consider for a codification would be something around but what tends to happen in practice, especially when local government finance. My long-term aspiration a difficult situation arises, is what we have seen in would be that local authorities are able to have a Scotland. We had a Concordat as well—a great genuine and mature dialogue with their citizens about fanfare in 2007 with the new Scottish Government, what kind of services should be delivered at what cost with all sorts of warm words about giving greater in their area. That is very difficult now, because local power and un-ring-fencing funding and all sorts of government doesn’t raise very much of its money things. This year in particular, though there has always locally, and the money it does raise is through the been a sense of it, it became very clear, with the council tax, which is an extraordinarily badly Scottish Government saying, “Well, here you are, you designed tax. It’s not terribly progressive. It’s not can have this proportion of cuts if you do this, this buoyant. So that is certainly something that should be and this, and a much higher proportion of cuts if you a candidate for consideration in any codification. It is don’t”. quite hard to work out exactly how you do that. Sir Simon Milton: You are absolutely right. All the I was again looking at the Swedish constitution. I talk about localism and decentralisation will be for think they set a target of 70%. Now, what strikes me naught unless local levels of government have greater about targets like that is that one way in which we can financial autonomy. The new Government seem to be very easily get local government in this country to stumbling their way towards recognising that, because raise more than half its own money is simply to cut there is discussion now about possibly localising the central government grants some more. In fact, by the business rates. That would give local authorities a end of this Parliament local government will probably buoyant source of revenue, but we will wait and see raise well over 40% of its own money simply because whether that actually transpires. Previous we have seen such big reductions in central grants. Governments, the last one in particular, weren’t But it strikes me as completely realistic that we could interested in going that far. They set up the Lyons say something like, “We think local government inquiry, which made various recommendations, but all should always be able to raise a majority of its funding its recommendations on finance were completely from local sources, ideally from diversified and discarded. buoyant sources, not just from the council tax, and Going back to my discussions with Hazel Blears at ideally not just from a mix of the council tax and the the time on the local government Concordat in business rate”. England, that came about because when Gordon If we were being more ambitious, we might start to Brown became Prime Minister he published a White look at questions of whether we are able to identify a Paper on the “Governance of Britain”, which had particular sphere of competence, which we think is various ideas—fixed-term Parliaments and all sorts of local government’s preserve, and say that local things. One idea was that there should be this governments should raise and have control over the Concordat between central and local. Nobody knew money in that sphere. That is a more challenging goal, what it was about, but the Secretary of State realised particularly because we have such flexible definitions that it fell to her to deliver it, so we were going to of what services local government really runs. An have a Concordat. We had discussions and I said at interesting question, as we move increasingly towards the time that, unless there was financial devolution personalised budgets in social care, is whether we can and autonomy, it really wasn’t going to make any say that social care remains in local government’s difference. If I’d been a braver politician, I would sphere of competence, or whether it is a service that cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 76 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton is broadly commissioned by local government, but so used to it, the media pick up on it and politicians which is really bought and managed by individuals. It frequently indulge in it. is troublesome and problematic, but it would be an We need some of the linguistic redefinition that Sir interesting discussion. Simon has hinted at. A postcode lottery is bad if it means that everyone is paying the same and they are Q232 Sheila Gilmore: May I quickly ask a question, getting unwarranted variations in service from one which Eleanor might have asked if she had been here, area to another. That is a bad thing, let’s make no and which she has asked previously, about how do we bones about that. On the other hand, if people are get out of the mindset—the media have it in particular, paying different amounts, or have asked for different and people respond to it—of the postcode lottery? I things, that reflects local preferences and drives am not familiar with the English arrangement, but the innovation and that seems a thoroughly good thing. arrangement for business rates in Scotland is that they We need to make the case publicly—and politicians are all gathered in and distributed according to need. very much need to make the case publicly—for For a city like Edinburgh, we feel disadvantaged, but democratic choice, while still wanting to crack down other places are clearly benefiting. It is about both on variation that has happened just because one how you distribute the finances and how you change hospital is awful and another one is good. the mindset that if it is different, it is somehow bad. Sir Simon Milton: Ministers have to get used to Jessica Crowe: One of the things that you need, to saying that that is a locally devolved matter, as they get away from the idea of a postcode lottery, is clear do for Scotland and Wales, when asked questions in accountability and legitimacy for those decisions. It is the House to justify or criticise whatever happens to only a lottery if there is no rational means for making be the decision locally. that decision. You most often hear it in relation to the Chair: Andrew, did you want to come in on this availability of certain drugs and treatments, and I particular one? think that one of the reasons for that is that nobody Mr Turner: Well, this and another. really knows how primary care trusts make decisions Chair: Let me take Simon then. on commissioning priorities. As Bill Moyes would probably say if he had been here, there is always a Q233 Simon Hart: To me, this shines a bright light balance between the professional technical on the exasperation that a lot of citizens feel about the determination of what is important and what need is process. Most people are interested in outcomes, from a medical point of view. You can have rather than the means by which those outcomes are legitimacy through people who have been elected with reached. Listening to your comments simply confirms a mandate to make particular decisions. You can then to me that we are a long way off the position you strengthen that connection between the public and the suggest where the public can be convinced. If our decision makers. Arguably, it is therefore not so much experiences are anything to go by, most people simply want a decent service and they don’t particularly care of a lottery, because there is a reason for that decision whether it is the local authority, the Welsh Assembly to have been made. or national Government. Are we not getting into a Sir Simon Milton: When I was Chairman of the Local position where we are building up false expectations? Government Association I used to talk about postcode From what I have just heard, and from what Sheila choice, rather than postcode lottery. Gilmore said, in the end, people aren’t going to have Jessica Crowe: I would say that you need something the power that we’re telling them they will have, more than choice, because there needs to be because they will not control as much as we are accountability for those choices. Choice implies that indicating they will control, even under the Localism all choices are equal and that everyone has the same Bill. power to make the choice. It is difficult to escape from the party political trap— Sir Simon Milton: The choice being the choice made again, I go back to the question I asked earlier and I by those who are democratically elected in that would be interested to hear your view. Take two locality. examples: first, free prescriptions in Wales, for which Jessica Crowe: Yes, in that case I would agree with no equivalent is available in England; and secondly, that. the recent announcement by the Welsh Assembly Simon Parker: What the polling research on this about tuition fees, which is fundamentally different suggests is that it is possible to convince people that from the scheme being imposed in England. It seems accountabilities have shifted to the local level, but it to me that if I was just a punter—a voter—the is quite hard. One of the things that you have to do is combination of party politics being played out here unambiguously push that power down and make it and in the Welsh Assembly would prevent the proper clear that that person in the locality is responsible and devolution of power in the context of this that you are not responsible for it at the centre. One conversation. As a consequence of that, unless we’re of the few examples that the research found where really careful, we will end up with more frustrated and that had been done successfully was transport in exasperated citizens than we’ve got now. You have London, where that was associated with the Mayor almost persuaded me that we’re going the other way. and seen as his responsibility, and where it was not Have I got that wrong? Whitehall and Westminster’s job any more. That is an Simon Parker: Oh dear. interesting example of where that shift away from the postcode lottery mentality has been achieved. It Q234 Simon Hart: I know you may not have meant requires quite a broad cultural shift, because we are that; it is not a criticism, but that’s how I now feel. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 77
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton
My heart has been sinking. I know that’s not what you will be enshrined—that is the intention. It needs to be intended, but it is the effect that you had. strengthened in quite a major way to tackle that. If Simon Parker: In that case, let me tell you why I am you have seen the very helpful essential guide, which rather more optimistic than I’ve made you feel. First, has a set of six actions that Government need to take, let's give credit where it’s due. A former boss of mine, the things that are in the Bill to deliver those are quite David Halpern, made a fascinating graph once—he small. Arguably, lots and lots of small actions add up does a lot of graphs. It showed that if you look at us in to one big impact, but I’m not sure that it does. comparison with other European countries, the British For me the missing link, as I said at the start, is the public are unusually disillusioned with both the state link back to democratically elected representatives. and the market. That is really interesting, and perhaps There needs to be more in the Bill about their role and no surprise after the recession and the crisis we have their powers to hold all sorts of agencies to account. just come out of. People appear to be fed up with what What is very interesting is that the Department of some of them see as a big nanny-ish state that intrudes Health’s response on the White Paper consultation, as on their lives. Equally, they feel that they have been I mentioned, originally said that health scrutiny would failed by the banks and the marketplace. That raises a go, but it now says that health scrutiny must remain; question: if we don’t trust either of those things, what that it’s the role of democratically elected do we trust? representatives to challenge health care providers; and I don’t know whether the big society is quite the right that it is a really important safeguard for description or line, but I’m enthusiastic, and I think accountability and greater involvement of patients and lots of people in local government are enthusiastic the public. It extends those powers over all publicly about it if it is explained to them in the right way. funded providers of health and social care. On the one They are enthusiastic about the idea that we hand, you have really quite a strong statement from a increasingly need to create new forms of social power, not-very-localist Department about the importance of and new ways for citizens to engage, do things for democratically elected representatives challenging all themselves and each other, and build up social capital providers on behalf of communities, but on the other in local areas. The obvious question about that is that is not reflected in all the provisions of the whether disillusion with two forms of power translates Localism Bill. into enthusiasm for a third form of social activism. If we had that sort of principle enshrined across the The answer is, yes, at least a bit. The polling data do board—it would need that cross-Government not show that there are millions upon millions of consensus, which I think we have agreed is not yet people waiting for the rules to be removed so that they there, to deliver that—it would be a really important can get out of their houses and do more stuff, but there step to give that safeguard and to begin to build up are still quite a lot of people who would like to do more confidence. We ought to remember also that more and feel that they are blocked from that. That is although public trust in Government is not high, something to build on. people have more trust in their local councillors It’s important to remember that we’ve spent a long than—I’m sorry to say—in national MPs. time in this country with a lot of power at the centre. We haven’t been enthusiastically putting assets into Q236 Chair: Sir Simon, do you want to comment? people’s hands or encouraging social activism and Sir Simon Milton: I would agree with what Jessica local engagement. If you start from where we are now has just said. To my mind, one of the greatest levers after a very long period of centralisation and say, for improving people’s lives is greater democratic “People don’t want localism”, that seems slightly odd. accountability. Some really interesting experiments They don’t want it because we have not yet had that are about to happen. One that hasn’t been raised yet, discussion. We are embarking on that discussion and which is potentially quite far-reaching, is the there is some evidence that the public can be Government’s policing reforms. For the first time, convinced. In a sense, your point—correct me if I am chief constables will need to look not up to the Home wrong—is that the public do not really care where Secretary and Home Office officials for their rewards power is exercised, they just want it to work. I think and brickbats, but to local people through local that it works better at a local level, and people will democratically elected representatives. I think that see that. could lead to quite profound changes in policing in this country. Q235 Simon Hart: It is a bit more than that. To clarify, my concern is that we are giving people the Q237 Chair: Can I just take you back to something indication that they will have power, but I am not you alluded to earlier, Sir Simon? Would London want convinced that they will. They may come out of this unfettered tax-raising powers? Would that be a help process slightly disappointed. I agree with you on the to you? localism point, but from what I’ve heard, I’m not sure Sir Simon Milton: I don’t think Londoners would that we’re going to make it as easy as we suggest. want London government to have unfettered tax- Jessica Crowe: That’s always the kind of thing that raising powers, but there is no doubt that— new Governments do. They over-promise and then under-deliver as things roll out. We have seen that Q238 Chair: Well, fettered by the ballot box. before, so I think there is a danger of that and I think Sir Simon Milton: Yes. I think London is funded even you’re right to be concerned about it. There is, more by central Government than any other local however, potentially an opportunity to strengthen the authority; it’s just the way the funding system has Localism Bill, which is where a lot of this rhetoric been set up. So it really constrains the ability of a cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 78 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton
Mayor of London to do innovative things. That is of local authorities providing MOTs. That might be going to change if we get things such as retention of part of an answer. business rates, and tax increment finance where you I suspect that probably we are just starting out on a are able to raise money for capital infrastructure that journey of immense change in how we do governance would be funded from a revenue stream of future local in this country. I hope that we are, and it is something taxation being kept in the area. Those things would that my organisation will promote. One reason why I make a significant difference. want to stick up a little for local government is that, given the sheer scale of the challenge that it faces Q239 Chair: It strikes me, Sir Simon—I have said over the next two years, I suspect local authorities are this to a number of witnesses—how timid local coming before this Committee and saying, “Look, authorities are in demanding their freedom. If you give us the powers to cope with that” and “Give us look at every other western democracy, they would the room to cope with that, and let’s worry about the laugh out loud that that is the best we can ask for constitutional settlement in the long term.” Of course ourselves in terms of local government. People who it is not an either/or choice: you can have both, and I are used to running all their own affairs and raising think we should try to have both. If there is a lack of virtually all their own tax revenue have a history and ambition, which you detect, it may simply be because tradition of being equals with central Government. In local government’s time scales at the moment are very the situation we are looking at, if we are really lucky short, because in many areas they are working out we might get the business rate back. Isn’t there a bigger vision out there somewhere in local how to take 9% out of their budgets next year. government? Jessica Crowe: It is also a feature of the fact that in Sir Simon Milton: We are all creatures of our history, lots of areas the direction of travel seems to have all culture and tradition, if I may say so. Yes, if I compare been in the other direction, and has done over the past London to our nearest competitor city, which would 15 or 20 years or longer. That is the case from the be New York, the Mayor of New York is financially previous Government’s constant attempts to set up autonomous. That has risks as well as potential, new funding streams going to other agencies, not local because, obviously, in the current recession New York government, and, for example, creating a New Deal has lost a massive amount of its tax base, as for Communities boards—often duplicating the businesses have moved out, and it is in a worse activities and priorities of local government—with situation fiscally than London. Nevertheless, the their own funding stream from central Government. It Mayor of New York is able to act in a way that the goes right up to now, when, as one local treasurer Mayor of London can’t, in terms of incentivising told me, the settlement has assumed that 10% of every business to come to locate in the city and doing all authority’s schools will become academies, and has, sorts of things through leveraging the tax system. I therefore, taken 10% out of the LEA element of the think it would be to London’s and the UK’s benefit if funding. That is central Government determining local we could do that, because it would give us a much policy and practice even before it has happened. There stronger competitive position. On the other side, there are those pressures all going in the opposite direction are things that the Mayor of New York can’t do that from that we might want to see. the Mayor of London can. Their biggest complaint in New York is that the Mayor has no responsibility for Q240 Chair: One hears, “It is awful and central public transport. Government should give us more money.” One does Simon Parker: I am struck by the fact that we are not hear, “We could run our own affairs much better if obviously creatures and, to some extent, captives of we were allowed to”. That’s what surprises me when I our history. I’ve recently been reading about the compare things with our near neighbours in the other history of Birmingham. I’m struck, as anyone must be western democracies. reading about Joseph Chamberlain in the 19th century, Sir Simon Milton: I think that is an unfair statement. by the amount of autonomy that he had to run his city. It wasn’t very easy to get Birmingham to the peak of That is what local government has been saying. its civic glory—a lot of people didn’t want to pay high Unfortunately, we don’t necessarily win the argument. rates, and there was a huge movement against paying There is a very regrettable example at the moment of rates in Birmingham. One way that Birmingham got how things are going in the wrong direction, which is round that was to municipalise gas and water, and use that the new Government are centralising issues to do the profits to pay for the redevelopment of the city with skills rather than let them be procured or centre. commissioned and supported at a local level, where What’s the modern equivalent of gas and water people have a much finer understanding of why you municipalism? That is an interesting question and I have very high levels of worklessness on a particular don’t have the answer yet. What things would enable estate or wherever it might happen to be. What in my local government to develop its own sources of view should be happening is that those local revenue for itself? One interesting area might be authorities should be commissioning from the private something like renewables, where the feed-in tariff or voluntary sector the services to tackle those allows local authorities to be quite entrepreneurial. particular problems instead of having nationally led Swindon has done some quite interesting work on contracts by the DWP, which I am afraid ultimately providing broadband spectrum across the town centre. won’t work. Local government does say, “Let us do Eric Pickles, of course, is an enthusiastic proponent it, we can do it better”, but is not always believed. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 79
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton
Q241 Mr Turner: I am going to say something that more freedom for local authorities to tackle those sorts is thoroughly offensive to our guests—they are too of issues would undoubtedly be a better thing. London dominated. Sir Simon Milton: I am aware that in other local Sir Simon Milton: You’re right. authorities—I am pretty sure it was Kent—they believed that there was market failure in the local bus Q242 Mr Turner: I know. I’m not blaming them. We services, so they actually went out and intervened in aren’t consulting people in, say, Burton-upon-Trent, the market and bought buses to make sure that there Oswestry or almost anywhere that isn’t in central was a bus service that could be run. I don’t know London or occasionally Edinburgh. That worries me, enough of the detail, but it might be worth looking because I don’t think we’re getting to real people. The at. The wider point is that your council or local bus second thing is that in my constituency, the Isle of companies should be allowed to do what is right for Wight, there are some very good things and some very the local economy. There need to be locally elected bad things. There are some things to do with locality, people who can take that decision. and the problem is I can’t work out which of these London is different from the rest of the country, I’m things are problems because of localism and which afraid, because we do have a devolved settlement and, are problems because we don’t really want to have in all sorts of areas, the Mayor of London departs anything to do with it. The trouble is that the quite happily from what is required in the rest of the Government have been and still are, I suspect, pulling country. Of two very recent examples, one is the the things that are happening so that we have to do settlement just announced for policing. Every part of them. the country has a ring-fenced grant for PCSOs, but in Let me give you an example—bus fares. I find London that grant is not ring-fenced, so the Mayor examples are always much better than generalities. can decide that, rather than have PCSOs, he could Forgive me if I break the rules. On the island, I have switch to warranted police officers. That is a local been talking a great deal to people who haven’t had decision because we are a devolved part of bus services recently. I’m not saying this is a majority, government. because I haven’t consulted the majority, but I take The other example is that the Government, nationally, the view from quite a large minority. They feel it are about to abolish, through the Homes and would be better if elderly people paid half bus fares, Communities Agency, standards for house building— but they are not allowed to. The rules absolutely or size standards. In London, we are being allowed forbid it. The Government aren’t going to do it, to keep our own size standards which we have come because it was in our manifesto, so how do we get up with. buses on the Isle of Wight? We’ve got some buses, So, it can be done, but perhaps this goes back to where but we’ve got worse services than we had last year. we started and is where codification needs to happen. So what do I do? I suspect the answer is pretty clear— It needs to be set out that it is right that local areas the bus companies should be able to set the bus fares, have that power to do things differently. not the people nationally. Jessica Crowe: You can see that the centre would be Sir Simon Milton: Or your local authority should be rightly nervous about just letting everything go out allowed to set up the same bus service and charge without any clear understanding of how it was going what it likes. to be exercised or of what the limits and demarcations Mr Turner: God help us, but yes, I understand that it were. If you felt that, that would be a benefit of would be there. codifying some principles, and if you have those expectations of how the devolved powers would be Q243 Chair: Can I ask for a reply? held to account for how they were exercised, I think Mr Turner: I suppose it is a good idea to ask for a that comes back to what could be done in the Bill. reply. What do you think? For example, if local authorities want to put up a Jessica Crowe: You’re right. You’ve chosen to invite completely different sort of governance, then they three people who come from London. I was a London have to say how they want it to be open and local authority councillor. I think we said in our transparent—how they expect it to be more open, submission that one of the things that would benefit a transparent and accountable than what they have got. greater and more constructive relationship between They don’t have to do that if they are following one the centre and the local is if there was more of the two prescribed options. If you were going to be connection between central and local scrutineers. local, as you say, then each local authority should be There could be great value. I would invite the required to say how it intended to be held to account Committee to come and meet an Overview and locally. It has to go further than elections every four Scrutiny Committee that had investigated the issues years—it should be what happens in-between times, that you’re concerned about, and you could see how how the decision making will be open, how it will be councillors are going about investigating these issues. made clear how people can influence those decisions We’d be very happy to facilitate that kind of dialogue, and how organisations will be accountable locally. If and they could undoubtedly learn more from you. you could do that and set out those expectations, that Indeed, we do facilitate that through some seminars might give some comfort to the centre, enabling it to that we organise with your Clerks. So there could be let more go. more learning between central and local elected Simon Parker: I am far from insulted—although I am representatives. That aspect could enrich your a proud Londoner—but by one of those happy enquiries. I think Sir Simon’s absolutely right, and coincidences I was actually in Burton-upon-Trent cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 80 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton about three weeks ago, talking to the leader and the constraint is that you don’t control the money—you Chief Executive, which was very interesting. have money that comes through the Government The only point that I would add, because I think we grant. While that continues to be the case, the person have heard a very good response, would be to go back who holds the purse strings will inevitably be able to to the point that I made at the beginning, which is that exercise a great deal of influence. I completely agree with you. The idea that we are Jessica Crowe: What there should be, even if that going to codify in a semi-constitutional way a new situation continued and local government did not have relationship around Government, and that it is going the same diversified sources of its own income, is an to be done by MPs and people like us in London, is acceptance that although central Government might not the way to do it. It needs to emerge from a national control the funding and therefore have some debate and a discussion that leads us to a sustainably expectation of the sorts of things that they feel ought localist change in our governance. to be achieved, the ability to say how those things are achieved should be with those who know the area Q244 Chair: Who would lead this debate? You are best. Sir Simon’s example about skills and assuming that it sort of pops out of thin air. We have worklessness is a good one, in that such matters got a very highly centralised society. Who on earth should not be commissioned at national level. Local would initiate such a debate, particularly when institutions that are accountable democratically should political power is at stake? You are, therefore, asking have the ability to do that. They have said how they people that run the centre to give power away and to are going to be transparent about how they make those institute a national debate. It seems rather hopeful. decisions and about how people can influence them Simon Parker: We have a Government in place now locally, so they can justify that. They should be able who have staked their political fortunes on the to say how they want to achieve the broader national localism stuff actually working. It doesn’t seem outcomes that it might be legitimate for central beyond credibility to ask them to take the debate out Government to expect, given that the funding is to the public. I hope that it actually turns into coming from the centre. something that looks a bit more like a movement. It Sir Simon Milton: I seem to recall—I will probably seems like something that local authorities themselves get this wrong—that one of the big political rows on should want to lead. the island in recent years was around the restructuring We have a Government who have explicitly said, “We of schools. Should it simply be a matter for the Isle want power out there.” We might not believe them of Wight to decide whether it wants middle schools and might be sceptical, but they have said it. They or not, or is it right that a national Government should have shown in some of their early legislation and say, “We are not happy with the quality of what’s some of the early things they have done, that they are being produced in this particular area, and we believe prepared, to some extent at least, to put their money that it would be better if there was a restructuring of where their mouth is. Let’s challenge them to go schools”? I think that the national Government have a further. legitimate say, not least because they are also Jessica Crowe: If something was enshrined and if there was some backsliding and people did not want providing the money. to do it, they would be forced to justify that. That Chair: Currently. would be one of the benefits of putting on a statutory Simon Parker: The point that Sir Simon and Jess have basis some of the principles in the European charter, both made is that to some extent we need to rethink for example. Probably, like Sir Simon’s Concordat, the line between central and local responsibilities. I that is more honoured in the breach than in the don’t think anyone is saying, “Let’s turn into a actuality. federation in which the Isle of Wight is its own state and has absolute autonomy.” That would not be a Q245 Mr Turner: A good thing for my good thing for the Isle of Wight, because there are constituency—I suspect this is where there is a things that central Government quite usefully do. In difference between Simon and me—is that we are lots of European countries, which we look to as happy to take decisions locally. We very much hate examples of localist states, it is frequently the case the idea of decisions coming over the water. I am a that there are reorganisations and national initiatives bit surprised that Simon found that people don’t care. on local government, but they are just handled quite What is happening is that people cannot get the things differently. So, I don’t think I know the answer about done that they want to have done, because there are where you draw that line. Clearly, what we are all so many things in a list of what they are required to proposing—and I think what you have been do. It is going to be a challenge to get people in proposing—is that we must shift that line in favour of London—and Southampton come to that—to lay aside the local decisively, and that we should then seek to their ideas of what we ought to be doing and let us lock in some protections to stop the kind of get on with the things that we want to get on with. backsliding that Jess has identified as a potential Are you happy about allowing people in the Isle of problem. If we can get the Government to commit Wight to make those decisions—all of them? If not, now—in the first flush of their localism—to a the problem is what to do, because you are referendum and some principles, later in the immediately denying us the chance. Parliament, as they come under more pressure to Sir Simon Milton: I think the principle must be yes. centralise things, it becomes harder for them to do Of course, I would support the right of people in the that. They then at least have to think twice before they Isle of Wight to make their own decisions. The do it, and that would be a thoroughly good thing. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 81
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton
Jessica Crowe: It would also make them be Q250 Chair: There is, of course, one area where we transparent about it, which the Government have said do say that you can’t just simply repeal without the is a key thing that they want to promote more of. If second Chamber consenting, and that is in the there were a set of commitments and principles that extension of the life of a Parliament—in the were expected to be in play for how central and local Parliament Act 1911. Some witnesses have said we decisions are made, the Government would have to be could have a section (b) there that says that if there is transparent about where they wished to derogate from an agreed division of rights and responsibilities those. They would have to justify that and they would between the locality and the centre, that shall not be be held to account for saying, “No, we think this is passed without the consent of the second Chamber. something where the national prerogative is stronger.” So, effectively, were the rights of local government or They would have to justify it, it would be open and even national Government to be done away with, you transparent, and people could question it. would have this fall-back position of the second Simon Parker: The default should be that you don’t, Chamber being able to say, “I’m sorry, but on this rather than you do, and if you do, you have to occasion, we can say no.” I’m not saying that they’d explain why. do it whenever there was an organic change in the relationship, but if there was something fundamental. Q246 Chair: I will move on to Sir Simon, in respect Sir Simon Milton: But they’re all going to be of the experience you had around the Concordat, different. Excuse my ignorance on this, but how which I think was a great effort to do something would that be different from any other piece of serious in this area. Perhaps it hasn’t quite turned out legislation on which you need the consent of the the way that many of us wanted, but are there things second Chamber? that we can learn from that? What are the main things? For example, it was a voluntary, non-statutory code, Q251 Chair: It is true that it remains an Act of so is one of the lessons that there should be some Parliament, but it has some sanctity for being the 1911 statutory force behind that? If so, do you feel that Act, because so many other things were done at that there has to be something that embeds a code beyond moment. So, in effect, it has a certain resonance the disposal of the next incoming Government, who beyond a normal statute. may just decide to abolish it by merely changing an Jessica Crowe: That sounds like it could be a good Act of Parliament? parliamentary mechanism for achieving such goals, Sir Simon Milton: The real lesson to be learned from but I think it is really important to ensure that any that was that if you have a code or concordat without agreed code is not tied to things that are going to be any form of policing mechanism or form of redress, it ephemeral. Simon’s point about the LAA targets and will fall into neglect very quickly, so you would need linking the Concordat to something of that nature to have some mechanism for righting a wrong, or for almost condemned it to becoming out of date very dealing with a grievance under the code. swiftly. So it would have to be based more on some very clear principles and commitments than on any Q247 Chair: So that really means statutory. specific delivery mechanisms, or anything of that Sir Simon Milton: It would, yes. nature. It would have to be general, but not so general that it is meaningless. That is the challenge. Q248 Chair: On the question of there being a settled answer on the principles that should apply in respect Q252 Chair: The right of local government to raise of local government and central Government, is there its own revenue has been an example put to us. a way of putting that beyond the reach of easy repeal? Jessica Crowe: Yes, and some of the other principles Did people think about that at that time? that are in the European charter. One of them states Sir Simon Milton: Is there a way of putting it— that decisions should be made at the level closest to the citizen. Q249 Chair: Just beyond repeal following a change in Government, so that it is more lasting and actually Q253 Mr Turner: Taking your example of buses, in a deal people can work with for 20 or 30 years. London, are buses local or regional? Sir Simon Milton: In the absence of a written Sir Simon Milton: Regional. constitution as a context, that is quite hard in this country. It’s not like the United States, which fought Q254 Mr Turner: Why? a civil war over states’ rights and is very clear, or like Sir Simon Milton: Because London is a functioning Germany, which has a very strong federal system. We economic unit, and it would be completely impractical don’t have that in this country; we don’t have a to have buses run at a local level. It is one of the best written constitution of that kind. So it’s quite hard to examples of a service that has to be delivered say, “Here is one area of governance that supersedes strategically. other issues that are subject to changing opinion.” You can have a party fighting a general election on a Q255 Mr Turner: I hear the answer, but it hasn’t platform of restructuring local government. Are you persuaded me of anything. going to say that if it is elected on that platform, it Sir Simon Milton: The reason being that there are 33 shouldn’t allowed to implement it? I think that is boroughs in London, so you could ask, “Why aren’t quite hard. there 33 local bus services?” cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 82 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton
Q256 Mr Turner: No, I wouldn’t. I would ask why which should appropriately be done locally are done there isn’t a private bus service. by the locality, and that in future, if I may paraphrase, Sir Simon Milton: All the bus services are private. it will be their right and responsibility to decide that, not the Government. But there will, none the less, be Q257 Mr Turner: No, all the bus services outside an interaction on things. There will be things that are London are private. Yours are all controlled. not absolutely clear. Sir Simon Milton: We have bus regulation. You are Mr Turner: But the problem is, I’ve got a hospital absolutely right that that is a difference, and it is on the Isle of Wight and I want it to remain there but another example of why London is different. When people elsewhere in the system say it would be better bus deregulation happened, London was excluded. As to have it in Southampton. The decision has a result, London is able to have a single controlling fortunately been made and it remains for the moment, mind, if I can put it that way. That is Transport for but how do you allocate? This is the thing that really London, which can arrange bus services to allow worries me. Nobody is allocating these things. Or people who live in Croydon to commute to Canary rather, if they are, they might be changed. Wharf. Chair: I don’t think a constitutional settlement, which is a broad-brush reallocation of responsibilities can Q258 Mr Turner: Let me take a different example. deal with a very specific matter. We can’t write a Southampton buses aren’t controlled by Southampton. constitution or a code to deal with one hospital. Sir Simon Milton: I think they should be. Personally, However, the underlying principle would be that I think that was a mistake by the Conservative decisions should be taken closer to the place where Government. they are most affected. I can only guess. In this case if you have a human rights framework, which we have Q259 Mr Turner: But people outside Southampton in this country, people are entitled to decent health control Southampton buses. care and people in that locality could have a greater Sir Simon Milton: I see the point you are making. say than they do at the moment when these decisions There is actually a very live example in London, may be made in Whitehall. I think I’d better move on, because we unsuccessfully sought to persuade the if I may, Andrew, to Simon. Government that the Mayor of London should have more control over rail commuter services serving Q262 Simon Hart: I have a very quick and sort of London, because there are so many people living in related question. It just requires rewinding a little bit, Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Essex who need to get to funnily enough to the disagreement that Andrew London to work. We think that they get a pretty Turner and I had earlier on. There is a reason for this. shoddy service, and we think we could improve it if Oddly enough, while I said that people didn’t care, we had more say over it. actually I think that people would care deeply about it if they felt that they could exercise any real power. Q260 Mr Turner: The problem here is that you’re That is the real problem. There is a great sense of just sectioning. You are not having the lowest local frustration; if they thought their input would translate definition, but going up the chain. That is what I into some positive changes then, of course, they thought you were saying should be different. would care very deeply. I think they don’t care Jessica Crowe: The definition of the principle of because it is more out of frustration than apathy. I just subsidiarity is the most local level appropriate. wanted to clarify that. The question I wanted to ask was this: is the Q261 Mr Turner: But who is to say that Sir Simon democratic structure—the current organogram of local is right and I am wrong? and national Government, whether it is in the UK as Chair: If I can help, Andrew. I think that the a whole or Scotland or Wales—sufficiently Government are effectively saying that this is the sophisticated, contemporary and robust to be able to settlement. deliver the things that we have talked about today? I Mr Turner: They do this every day of the week, and might have missed this. Will we need to change the they change their mind. democratic structure at local and national level to Chair: I may be putting words in the mouths of the overcome some of the frustrations we have talked witnesses. The witnesses can speak for themselves, about? but I think they are saying that there are some things Simon Parker: I am always struck by a quote that which the Government should not be able to change Geoff Mulgan used to use a lot. He said that local their mind about every week, because it is not an government isn’t local and doesn’t govern. What he appropriate power at their level. meant specifically was that local government often Mr Turner: But whose is? Who makes the decision? isn’t small enough to engage democratically with local If the Government do not make the decision, who is people and neither is it big and strategic enough to be to make it and why should it be what Sir Simon able to manage big services. If we were starting with suggests, what Simon Parker suggests or what we a blank sheet of paper, I don’t think that we would suggest? design the structures and boundaries that we have Chair: I think they are suggesting, if I may again put now. But, none the less, we have those and they are words in their mouths, that there is a better way of rather difficult to shift. One of the things that is doing it than the Government deciding. That better interesting about the cuts is that over the next few way, to answer your question, is that there is a years or so you will see a sort of organic restructuring reallocation of responsibilities and rights so that things of local government. What I mean by that is that there cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 83
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton will be district councils, but also small metropolitan need to strengthen the local accountability councils—some of them already say this—that will arrangements. As Simon says, centring it around the not be financially viable by the end of the spending locally elected councillor is really important. I think review period as standalone organisations and so they that what needs to come much more to the forefront will merge their services in one way or another. They of the Localism Bill is what the role of the local will share things. So we will see an organic councillor is in keeping an eye on all this stuff. It’s restructuring, and once we have done that, we may not about being quasi-regulators and inspectors and ask questions such as whether we need quite so many having all the power and control, because what is councillors in area X or area Y. I think the point envisaged is a much more messy, diffuse system of you’re trying to get at more particularly is about the service delivery by a range of agencies—public, quality of local democracy. private and voluntary—but the local councillor should have the crucial role of being able to challenge and Q263 Simon Hart: Yes, and I should have added, to question all those bodies and hold them to account in make it easier, that I’m also interested in the public—on behalf of the public and taking evidence relationship between the executive and the non- from the public—and the public should see the executive, which varies hugely from region to region, councillor and the scrutiny committee as the public and will, as a consequence of what we’re talking forum to which they go to raise their concerns and get about, change even further. If you could put that in them fed back in. the mix as well, I would be grateful. One of my concerns about some of the proposals Simon Parker: Jess will talk more about this but, for about transparency is about what happens as a result me, one of the problems with the way we’ve done of publishing every item of expenditure over £500. local government over the past decade is that targets, If a member of the public—an eagle-eyed armchair audit and inspection have pushed councillors into the auditor—is concerned about something they have role of elected service managers and left most spotted, what do they do with that information other councillors sitting there scrutinising them. Particularly than send it to the local paper and make a big hoo- as local government moves increasingly into more of hah? There needs to be a mechanism to feed that back a commissioning role and less of a direct service into the formal decision-making processes. I’m delivery role, it doesn’t feel as though that kind of talking about empowering local councillors to play “elected service manager plus scrutiny” role is that role and ask questions, no matter who is enough, so we need to think very carefully about how providing the service that people might be concerned to find new roles. about, and those providers and commissioners having Obviously, one of the issues, as you’ve said, is that to come and give evidence. At the moment, they local people are often frustrated that they can’t get don’t. They can be invited, and lots of them do come, things done. Increasingly, we need to see back-bench because they see it as a public relations thing. I’m councillors taking on a role almost as stewards of talking about making sure that they are expected to the—you’ll all groan if I say “big society” again, but come and give evidence and to say what their you know what I mean. Isn’t there a role for those response is to the recommendations. It should all be ward councillors in leading, organising, growing out in the open, with local councillors driving that. social capital and pointing it in useful directions? It Sir Simon Milton: On the issue of quality, when you becomes much less about seeing local democracy as being about the workings of the town hall, and more have a system that for so long has taken decision about, particularly for back-bench councillors, being making away from the local level, you get good involved in local communities, catalysing them, people not putting themselves forward, or not enough helping them and then bringing that knowledge back good people. The biggest difference between today into local government. In a way, what we’re seeing at and when I started as a councillor 22 years ago is the moment is the end of the idea that—I’m that now very few business people stand to become exaggerating a little for effect—councils will no councillors, because they just don’t see that as being longer shape places in quite the way they used to. The worth their time. If the Government’s agenda does one idea is that people will shape councils a lot more. I thing, hopefully it will encourage a wider range of think back benchers have a huge role in that. They people to come forward so that the great Victorian don’t play that role in lots of areas now, but they growth in local government, which was actually need to. business-led, might be something that happens again. One thing that councils can do now that would be very Q264 Simon Hart: So would it be fair to say—this helpful, which I did when I was a council leader, is is my final question—that there are circumstances in to give back-bench councillors their own meaningful which the executive may not be accountable but is budgets. We gave £100,000 per ward so that they competent? Does what you say interrupt that in any could actually make the decisions and use it more or way? As we know, there are some very competent less unfettered, subject to legalities, for the betterment executives and some very competent cabinet-led local of their local community. Most of the time, it was authorities, yet they are arguably, and frequently, done through voluntary organisations running lunch accused of being pretty invisible—the opposite of clubs for elderly people or whatever. transparent—and unaccountable. Jessica Crowe: That question is really important. If Q265 Andrew Griffiths: I apologise for my late there is to be a shift of power to the local level, there arrival. I was held up on constituency business and by needs to be a shift of accountability as well, so we public transport. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:03] Job: 008752 Unit: PG05 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o005_mark_Corrected ev5 16-12.xml
Ev 84 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
16 December 2010 Simon Parker, Jessica Crowe and Sir Simon Milton
I have two quick points. First, we hear a lot about the The LAML case has been brought up. It is about a general power of competence. The general power of local authority insurance mutual. I cannot remember well-being did not work in the ultra vires problem. A exactly, but I think that Brent was told that it could lot of people are putting a lot of store on giving local not enter into it. Opinion is still divided in the legal authorities greater power through the general power community about whether that case really should have of competence. Is it going to work? Where are the stood and whether the council should have made its problems? Are councils going to use it? case more powerfully. There are lawyers I have heard Secondly, I have a quick question for Simon about who would say that, probably, you could have covered elected mayors. You are the pilot for elected mayors. some of that with the old well-being power. You have seen how it works. What lessons do we need The interesting question will be, in practice: can local to learn from that in relation to going forward with authorities use this new power to do anything new? rolling out elected mayors across the country? Is there Is it practically going to make much of a difference? a need to address it specifically if we codify the Philosophically, it is absolutely an important statement relationship between local and central Government? of intent; practically, we will have to wait and see, Sir Simon Milton: I support the Government’s and some of that depends on what kinds of strings and proposals for more elected mayors, but not if that reserve powers might be attached. means simply calling a council leader an elected Sir Simon Milton: I think it is going to take time. The mayor. They have to have wider powers and psyche of local government has been so suppressed responsibilities. For example, it is intended that the for so long that it will be a while before people start elected mayor in Birmingham, Manchester or to use the power of competence to its fullest extent. I wherever will be the elected police commissioner for think you will find that in different parts of the country that area. They should have wider powers for skills, you will have different people pioneering things, and for place making and for things that will actually then others will say, “Oh, look what they’ve done— change those areas. Do not just call a council leader we could probably do something like that.” So it will an elected mayor and think that the job is done. It take time for the culture to shift. needs something much wider than that. Jessica Crowe: I think that is right, because if it The biggest thing that an elected mayor gives is a involves local authorities seeking to take powers over voice for the area, and greater accountability. That is something that other people have been used to a tribute not just to the Mayor whom I work for, but exercising, it will be challenged. It probably needs to his predecessor. One of the reasons why London has go along with some of the other things that we have become such a dominant economic force in the last talked about this morning, such as a principle of decade is that it had single accountable leadership, subsidiarity. If it is a power to do anything that you which meant that we could bid for things like the are not proscribed from doing in law, there could be Olympic games. We would not have got the Olympic lots of laws that proscribe you none the less, so the games for London if there had not been an elected reality of the competence would be quite narrow. So voice in London. We would not have the transport it needs to go along with some other principles. settlement that we have if we did not have somebody who could argue—if not on equal then nearer equal Q266 Andrew Griffiths: Do you think there is a terms—with the Government of the day. Those are the concern that officers, in particular, being risk-averse, really powerful reasons why we should have elected will act as a drag to councils using it? mayors, but they need to have a broader remit than Sir Simon Milton: That could be the case. But, again, current council leaders do. I think this will be a matter of a cultural shift. Where Simon Parker: I was sort of dreading the question you have strong elected leadership—maybe mayors about the general power of competence, because the will be in the vanguard of that—it will push those Bill has just come out and we are still trying to work officers to do things that they might feel reticent about it out. There are people in my organisation who are to start with. more expert on this than me, and they are currently Chair: I am delighted that Andrew made it, because trying to work it out themselves. It is extremely I know he is a keen attender and not normally late. complex and a very long bit of legislation. Great to see you, Andrew. Thank you all, colleagues, It is a very important philosophical shift. The old this morning. power of well-being was giving local government a Can I particularly thank our witnesses, including Bill, new power to do some stuff. This is doing the reverse who had to leave early? It has been a stimulating in a sense. It is saying that we are going to change session and we have a lot more questions in our round the environment so that, if there is not minds. I don’t know whether that is a good thing— something that bans you from doing it, you can go we are looking for some answers—but we have ahead and do it. That is a very welcome move. The certainly had a good exchange this morning. I thank practical question is how much does it really allow you all for taking your valuable time to come and see you to do that which you could not do under the well us today. being power? cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:19] Job: 008752 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o006_mark_uncorrected ev6 23-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 85
Thursday 20 January 2011
Members present: Mr Graham Allen (Chair)
Mr Christopher Chope Mrs Eleanor Laing Andrew Griffiths Mr Andrew Turner Simon Hart Stephen Williams Tristram Hunt ______
Examination of Witness
Witness: Mr Clive Betts MP, Chair, Communities and Local Government Committee, gave evidence.
Q267 Chair: The time has come to allow Clive to those do mesh together, and I think if we are going to come in and sit down. I think it is an extremely helpful make some significant change in this area, it has to be thing that we’ve managed to get the Chair of a fellow with a general support of parliamentarians across- Select Committee along. Clive, I think you know that party. And I think, therefore, to have two Select we’ve been looking at the relationship between local Committees looking at issues—we have had our and central Government, I don’t know whether it’s previous report—and to work to try and get some appropriate to say in perhaps a more stratospheric agreement, I think, is really helpful. Change is only constitutional way than you are looking at it in your going to come about through that sort of method. own Committee. We understand you’re looking at it Chair: Excellent. Well, we will ask the Members to in much more detail and at the practical workings and ask their questions. Steve, I understand you have to in line with the concept of localism. Our inquiry is leave, so you by all means go first. going along gently. We know that the Committee Clerks and others are meshing and talking to each Q268 Stephen Williams: I would like to go straight other, and you and I bump into each other in corridors into local government finance, as that is an area that and have a quick catch-up on what is going on. interests me as a former county councillor and I think it was very strongly the view of Members that councillor in the past. When we took evidence from we should go in lockstep with you as much as Simon Jenkins and other people such as Tony Travers humanly possible so that perhaps we could come up in the past, they said that really one of the big with something that was seamless at the end of this differences between our local government system and process. So, part of that, Clive, is to invite you along those abroad is the ability to raise your own taxes and to say a few words today and have Members ask you the breadth of those taxes in the many other questions. I wonder whether you want to make an authorities abroad. You might have a sales tax, opening statement to let us know perhaps where you property tax, income tax, business tax, hotel room tax, are in your own Committee work? et cetera, whereas in Sheffield or Bristol we only have Mr Betts: Very briefly, Chair, because I’m more than council tax, and we can only vary that slightly subject happy to respond to questions. I think you’re to a national cap and only within the bands set by absolutely right and thank you for the invitation. It’s Parliament anyway. So there’s not that much an interesting experience after many years in the discretion at all. Did your Committee come to the Select Committee to become the grilled rather than conclusion that if local government is going to have the griller, but that’s a different perspective by which more power and be of more meaning to its electors it to look at things. really ought to have more discretion over its tax base? I think you’re right—there are big issues around here Mr Betts: Yes, I think we had our report on the about relationships in our democracy and about how balance of power. We had a previous report in the our country is governed, which our two Select Select Committee on local government finance in the Committees are looking at in slightly different last Parliament as well, so the two go together. I think respects. We’re probably slightly more on the ground very much we were of that view that if local and immediately looking at where the Government is government is going to have genuine ability to act on going to, what its philosophy and thoughts are, and its behalf of its communities in an independent way—all general direction in relation to specific policies about right, there will always be things that are prescribed localism. As you say—and I notice the word you use, from central Government that central Government “stratosphere”, which you used in a previous evidence requires local government to do, but if there is going session—you are taking a more long-term view of the to be a genuinely greater freedom at local level there generality of relationships between central and local has to be a freedom over financial resources. government and how we can perhaps do something We concluded in our previous report on finance that on a permanent basis with regard to them. you did need an element of central Government I think that builds on, as much as anything else, the funding to equalise the difference between needs and Balance of Power Report, which as a Select different resource levels in different authorities. Committee we did in the last Parliament, which again Roughly speaking, you could achieve that if about one tried to look at that long-term view: what was the third of local government funding came from the balance of power, how has it changed and what could centre, which meant two thirds would have to be we do to change it in future? So I think the three of raised locally. Then you look at what those cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:19] Job: 008752 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o006_mark_uncorrected ev6 23-12.xml
Ev 86 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
20 January 2011 Mr Clive Betts MP possibilities might be. Obviously, council tax, we Mr Betts: We came out very strongly against capping. suggested, would remain. I know there may be slight difference of political opinion on that, but we felt that Q272 Stephen Williams: There should be none at with some reforms it could be made more progressive. all? You can bring business rate back to local authorities, Mr Betts: That was the Committee’s view. We then you could probably give them the ability to raise certainly didn’t find favour with it in any particular some level of income tax but with a requirement, of circumstances and we looked specifically at council course, that central Government would reduce theirs. tax capping and were against it. I also have a personal So that’s the sort of direction that we travelled in on view, although I accept I’m here as Chair of a Select both our reports. Committee: I have refused to vote for capping arrangements in the last Parliament and the one before Q269 Stephen Williams: Did you look at things like when proposed by my own Government. I just don’t locally set hotel taxes, for instance, in areas that have feel that as an elected Member for Sheffield I’ve got high tourist pressures? I know that has been discussed a right to comment on the detailed financial in the past. arrangements of some local authority whose Mr Betts: I think we probably felt that there wasn’t circumstances and particulars I have no knowledge of. any general panacea around on those. There may be I’m not saying I have no interest in it, but certainly relevance to some authorities, and I think our general not as much interest as the local council that is elected view was if local authorities wanted to do that, there in that area. should be a general freedom to do it, rather than the prescription from the centre. But in terms of the Q273 Chair: Clive, we’re looking at the broader general freedom to local government it wasn’t going democratic framework; that’s the role of this to come perhaps from hotel taxes. I think sales taxes Committee. So we’re not necessarily into all the nitty- are problematic with relatively small local gritty and detail. But “framework”: the very word government boundaries because people cross over implies clarity of relationship between local and them, but they’re not quite the size of some of the central Government. Some Members feel to various administrative units you get in the United States degrees that that doesn’t exist currently, which leads where it probably isn’t worthwhile driving four hours us to an ongoing discussion about codification: to buy something more cheaply, but driving down the actually writing down what are the responsibilities of road for a quarter of an hour probably is. So, hotel local government or central Government. What charges: maybe that should be a local discretion. We felt that the three elements, council tax, business rate, happens where there are clear overlaps, including income tax, were probably the main basis for greater overlaps of interest? You referred to this obliquely in freedom. previous thoughts from your Select Committee before you were Chair. What is your general view on that overall challenge? Q270 Stephen Williams: Did your Committee take any view on whether the setting of an existing tax or Mr Betts: If I could just divide the question into two the introduction of a new tax should be a decision for parts. First of all, I think there is a need for some sort the elected Members alone or whether there should be of long-term settlement as to the responsibilities and a referendum, for instance, of the citizens of relationships between central and local government, Sheffield? particularly in what is still and will remain a Mr Betts: I don’t think we specifically commented on parliamentary democracy. What are the rights of local that, but I think our general view—and I think it government within that parliamentary democracy accords with some of the evidence that you’ve taken where Parliament is sovereign? When we looked at it from people like John Stewart and George Jones on as a Select Committee, we identified two possible this—is that we effectively live in this country as a bases for such a code or agreement. One was the representative democracy. I certainly do feel there is Concordat that was signed between the Secretary of a case for referendums in certain circumstances, but State and the Chair of the Local Government we shouldn’t be fast and loose with that. I think we Association in the last Parliament. I think that, should try to reserve those for general constitutional actually, on reflection is not a great starting point, and matters and, therefore, I certainly have a personal I think Simon Milton and Margaret Eaton when they problem with the referendum requirements in the came indicated that it was a product of its time, rather Localism Bill. I think, actually, those tax matters are than something for the long term. for elected representatives to deal with. If you look at the European Charter of Local Self-Government, you’ll find something with a greater Q271 Stephen Williams: Yes. As an aside, Bristol degree of permanency. It talks about more general about 10 years ago had a referendum on the level of principles. We signed up to it as a country, but I think council tax and, lo and behold, the population voted if you put that into a legislative format so it was on a majority for there to be lower taxes, but there something we had to have regard to, and it was were significant variations in different parts of the city something there and something that both Houses of as to how people voted. Parliament had agreed, that would be a basis for a What about capping? Did your Committee take a view long-term good relationship where local government on whether there should be any national constraint on would have a greater standing. It is never going to a local authority in terms of the level of taxes it could be equal in parliamentary democracy but, certainly, it impose on its locality? would have a long-term status we could look back on. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:19] Job: 008752 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o006_mark_uncorrected ev6 23-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 87
20 January 2011 Mr Clive Betts MP
I know you’ve looked at the idea, which I think is Q274 Chair: One last thing from me. We’ve talked interesting, about having some sort of lock where both in Committee—certainly I’ve talked in Committee— Houses of Parliament would have to agree a change— about the fact that I welcome many of the things that a bit like the Parliament Act 1911. I think that’s an the incoming Government have done on freeing local interesting concept to look at. What as a Committee government on, for example, community-based we proposed as well, which I think you’ve had further budgeting; and in creating, certainly in a field I’m discussion about, is the possibility that once you have concerned about, the early intervention grant, adopted the European Charter, you require although it is not ring-fenced; and in a number of Government, whenever it produces legislation, to do other efforts to push responsibility and discretion to an assessment as to the impact of the legislation with local areas, which I’m quite happy to go on record regard to that particular charter, which is now part of as welcoming. our legislative framework. Then you set up a Joint In one sense, an incoming Government tends to be Committee of both Houses to evaluate that response quite fresh and radical for the first year, 18 months or to see if we are chipping away at the rights and two years historically, then starts to become much responsibilities of local government, often in an more incorporated into the Whitehall machinery and unforeseen way. I think that would then mirror what a little less daring, perhaps, in its policy prescriptions. happens with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Being greedy, I’m wondering whether we can take this and we could do that in a similar way. So I think you high-water mark where I think we are at the moment can create a framework that certainly doesn’t bypass and ensure that that moment is captured in the Parliament; it actually makes Parliament more relationship between local government and central relevant to the process. I think as parliamentarians we Government, rather than perhaps one that could have should actually welcome that. been taken at any point in the last 25 years where I think there’s a separate issue about the specific there was an atrophy of the strength of local responsibilities of central and local government. I government and a reinvigoration and strengthening of think it’s very difficult for a Committee to write down. central Government. This would be from a localist It’s something that will probably evolve as well. The point of view—I speak as a localist—a great time to Charter has a degree of permanency that creates the snapshot that relationship rather than perhaps the one that existed some time ago. I don’t know what you basis upon which we operate, but I think you can then feel about that. begin to look at how relationships might be agreed Mr Betts: I’m probably a little bit more sceptical of and how they may change over time. You look at the the localist agenda, although I don’t want to be too models in other countries where there is, I think, a prescriptive about what the Select Committee more equal basis between central and local eventually may come up with in its localist inquiry government as a matter of principle, you then do find because we still have to conclude our deliberations. I more responsibilities at local level and they aren’t think you are right that there is a general support for chipped away. The Swedish system isn’t perfect. It’s localism as a concept—people often mean slightly not that they’ve never had any contentions between different things by it—or as a way to reinvigorate our central and local government, but it does seem that democratic processes. There is a mood that should be there’s a more stable relationship. tapped into, and I think one of the things that came The Spanish system is an interesting one, in that they out of your previous hearings was that we didn’t just have an asymmetrical democracy—we probably need a constitutional change—we need a culture should not demur from that, because we have the change as well, and I think the two go hand in hand. Scottish and Wales situation, which makes our But I think we also have to be careful because George democracy asymmetrical. You have a list of powers Jones made the point—what he called the problem of for the regions in Spain—I know it’s not quite the sub-localism—about local government in this context same as local government but it’s an interesting being bypassed by central Government. I think Jessica example—and the regions negotiate with central Crowe made the point about chaotic accountability, Government the powers that they are competent to where you end up on the ground with things like free perform. There’s approval by Parliament on the one schools, police commissioners, and GP hand—so it isn’t just Government agreeing, it’s commissioning, and there’s no obvious way in which Parliament—and then there’s a referendum in the all this hangs together in the sense of a coherent form region that locks that agreement in place. It can’t of local self-government for areas. The mood music simply be undone by a simple legislative change in might be right, but we don’t necessarily have it Parliament in the future. I think that’s an interesting completely thought out. So I wouldn’t want a development that began in Catalonia and in the snapshot. I’d want to take a snapshot in terms of the Basque Country, but it has moved to other regions of mood and the general support for it, but probably not Spain who have embarked on a similar process. That all the details. lock of a referendum—it’s something that Simon If you look at the Localism Bill—I don’t know if Parker from the New Local Government Network anyone has ever actually sat down and read the whole mentioned when he came to see you—is an thing; I think I’ve read most of it—and at the degree appropriate and proper use of a referendum, which of detail about how local councils should go about might actually give permanency to a particular their scrutiny functions, their specific management constitutional relationship between a local authority functions and how they should initiate neighbourhood and Parliament on a specific list of issues and matters planning in their areas, it is incredibly prescriptive. of competencies. Now, there will always be a need—and this is the case cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:19] Job: 008752 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o006_mark_uncorrected ev6 23-12.xml
Ev 88 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
20 January 2011 Mr Clive Betts MP in Sweden when we looked at it and I think the point Q276 Andrew Griffiths: But you will always find has been made by other people—for central that’s a fundamental problem—the local authority and Government to require local government to do certain central Government and Secretary of State butting up things, but the degree of detail that it prescribes those against each other in the worst of cases when, for things to be done in, I think, is one of the real example, we have a Baby P case, or we have a local problems we have in this country. Can’t we just say authority that decides to give a chief executive to local government, “This is what we need you to do. £300,000 a year, or those sort of worst cases when You get on and do it in the most appropriate way for there is a clamour by the general public and the media your areas”? to say to the Secretary of State or to the Minister, “This is outrageous. What are you going to do about Q275 Andrew Griffiths: We can have an academic it?” Isn’t it the case that there will always be a need debate about the role and the relationship between for the Secretary of State to have that kind of central Government and local government, but we are overarching, overriding power? all practical politicians, and what I think we want to Mr Betts: I’m not sure. I think probably not, because see, and what our voters and our residents want is I’m probably an ultra-localist and I want to see the better services that are more reactive to their needs cultural change I referred to, as well as the and their concerns. We saw the general power of constitutional change. You are absolutely right. When competence given to local authorities by the previous we went to Sweden on our visit, people were just Government, which wasn’t taken up widely; it wasn’t amazed, because it was the time of the Baby P case well used at all. We now have the general power of and they could not get their head around the idea that wellbeing handed to local authorities. Do you think the Secretary of State was standing up in Parliament that’s going to deliver the kind of empowerment to dealing with the tragic death of one young boy in one local authorities that the Secretary of State suggests, local authority, where the responsibility for dealing and do you think councils are ready to try and grasp with it was with the local authority, its elected it and take it forward? representatives and appointed officials. They could not Mr Betts: The power of wellbeing was actually given see how the Secretary of State could possibly be by the last Government and there’s been a problem responsible. How could he know about it? How could about it. I think that it was well intentioned, and I he have hands-on expertise? How could anyone have think when the Secretary of State, Hazel Blears, at the come to him before the baby died and said, “There’s time, came to our previous inquiry, she said that she a problem here. How do we deal with it?” Well, of was prepared to look at the power of general course he couldn’t, and there is a misnomer. competence or the general power of competence—I’m When my good friend Ann Keen came to the not quite sure whether there is a difference between Committee to give evidence as Parliamentary Under them—but she didn’t feel there was a material Secretary of State for Health, we had an interesting difference between that and the power of wellbeing. little discussion, as there was just no concept of The problem is the lawyers got hold of the power of anything other than absolute responsibility for the wellbeing and the councils got cold feet about using Secretary of State and the Chief Executive of NHS in it. I think that is accepted as to what happened. It the system. That’s where all responsibility lay at the wasn’t a problem with the initial idea, but how lawyers interpreted it. end of the day, and I think we’ve just got to get away Yes, I’m very much in support of the general power from that. And let me say it isn’t just Ministers. I of competence. It should remove in some cases the rather like Eric Pickles’s comments about ending ring- problem of vires when councils don’t know whether fencing, because it’s just a way of politicians getting they’ve got the power to do something or not, because publicity. He’s right. Specific grants have been generally now, unless they’re restricted from doing wonderful opportunities for Ministers to get something, they should be able to get on with it. The photoshoots and issue press releases. Because if you problem about it being seen as a panacea for the need can give one grant a year but then you go on and give to rebalance our relationships between central and 10 grants a year, you get 10 times as much publicity. local government arises from the premise that councils That’s the thought behind it. There is a culture of can do anything that isn’t prevented by current ministerial involvement in things they’re not directly legislation, and they also have to do things that are responsible for. required by current legislation. I’m not just criticising Ministers here. Opposition If you begin with current legislation, which is heavily spokespeople are just as bad. If the Minister doesn’t centralised, that is the setting in which the general take responsibility, there will be someone from the power of competence is put into place. I think it’s Opposition Front Bench saying, “Why aren’t you fine, but in a different era where we have actually doing something about it?” And if neither of them do rebalanced the relationship between central and local it, then the press will say, “Why have Ministers government, that power would be much more abdicated their responsibility?” Of course, you’re effective. So I think it has to be seen as a creature of right: the public expect the Government to do its time. It’s a welcome move, but it is not a panacea. something. The bins don’t get emptied, so you expect A second slight problem is the catch-all clause in the the Minister to say something, even though the Bill that says the Secretary of State at any time can Minister has no power to do anything about it at all. override the power of general competence and stop a So I think there’s a need for cultural change, and I do local authority doing something he doesn’t want it to not necessarily accept that we have to have these catch do, and I think that’s not terribly helpful. all clauses for Ministers to even be given powers to cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:19] Job: 008752 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o006_mark_uncorrected ev6 23-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 89
20 January 2011 Mr Clive Betts MP interfere in things where they are not competent and of local councillors where the then Shadow Secretary for which they don’t have direct responsibility. of State was outlining a plan to scrap housing targets and the central listing position of housing numbers. A Q277 Andrew Griffiths: That sort of leads on to well-meaning councillor stood up and said, “But if accountability in local government because I think, you scrap the targets we won’t build any houses”. She historically, there is a great deal of scrutiny nationally couldn’t quite get into her mind that if the by the press, by think-tanks, by study groups who look Government didn’t demand that they build houses in at Government policy and how it’s operating. There is her ward or her borough, houses could still be built. a great deal of scrutiny and accountability. That is The question is: are there some areas where there often less apparent in the way in which the needs to be that level of demand from central Government operates, principally because people Government? don’t have the opportunity, the wherewithal or the You said there is best practice out there and it will time to delve into the workings of local government eventually filter down. But isn’t the problem that the and the effectiveness of it. The scrutiny system is part least-performing councils don’t want that level of of the Localism Bill, but what do you think needs to scrutiny? If you’re not performing, the last thing be done to increase that level of accountability? If you’re going to want to do is to shine a light into the local government wants to take on more power and darkest recesses that highlight just how badly you’re responsibility, how do we then ensure that there is a performing. So your suggestion is that, unless it’s proper level of scrutiny that the council taxpayer can driven centrally and there’s a central driver behind it, use to hold a council to account in a much more isn’t the danger that the worst performing councils effective way? will try and hide what they’re doing and will get less Mr Betts: I’m not sure you can prescribe that from accountability, not more? the centre. I think that if you go and look at local Mr Betts: You’re always going to have ranges of authorities, what you’ll find is good examples of performance. I don’t think you’re ever going to get scrutiny practice in some authorities, but others don’t away from that. I think it’s important that there is do it as well. But I think that’s one of the strengths, some mechanism of trying to compare performance not the weaknesses, of the local government system. between authorities. It’s very difficult, as you need Those examples of good practice will eventually be some sort of comparable data. It’s fine to put every bit looked at and learned from by other councils. It’s a bit of expenditure above £500 on a website, but it doesn’t like looking at a thousand flowers bloom and thinking, really give a feel for whether one authority is spending “We’ll get some failings”. its money better than another in delivering certain You can’t have a system of devolved local government services. in this country and not have some failings. Of course, There are concerns about the Audit Commission being people will always point to those. What you also get abolished. I accept that the body has gone, but how are great successes and innovation happening by do we deal with that value-for-money function? I having more power down at local level, and if what think that’s a function for local government. I think you get as an alternative is a prescription—and there’s the Local Government Association is much more an awful lot of prescription about scrutiny in the proactive in these fields and I genuinely believe that Localism Bill. Most parliamentarians won’t have read there is a role for them in trying to assist and help the Bill—let’s be honest about it—so why do they with authorities that are not performing to the level have to prescribe in that sort of detail how local that other authorities in similar circumstances are. authorities go about their scrutiny functions? I think When Merrick Cockell gave evidence on behalf of that’s just a practical thing. London Councils, he talked about councils being In terms of the climate in which the system operates, lifted up by assistance from other councils in the I think that it was Tony Travers who talked about the London area. I think there is a lot of that now we can Stockholm syndrome, which you have also talked look to, for local government to come forward and about. In the end, if councils feel they can blame help itself. somebody else—and it’s all down to them telling us The other point you make is an interesting one. Even how do it; “We wouldn’t really do it this way if we in my brave new world of European charters being had a choice”—that’s what they’ll do and there’s enshrined in legislation and this extra scrutiny on what always a fall-back. There’s always a cover. There’s central Government does in relation to taking powers always someone to blame. away or adding responsibilities to local government, Wherever you have the sort of system where there is there will still be tensions—of course there will. In so much prescription from the centre, you won’t get Sweden, central Government lays down the general the sort of responsiveness and the more active requirements for social services and local government participation by councils in some of the decisions that delivers it on the ground. There’s always rumour and we ought to see. I think that that climate there has tensions, for example over mental illness grown over the years. It is not that those councillors responsibilities in Sweden recently. are not adequate, intelligent, well-meaning or hard- Housing is a case in point. If we have a national need working, but they’ve been put in a situation where to house our people, how do we do that if the sum they’re not expected to take responsibility for these total of all the housing approvals from local planning things because it’s somebody else’s fault. decisions don’t add up to the total of houses you need? Of course there are going to be tensions. I think one Q278 Andrew Griffiths: I agree with you to a of the issues that you discussed previously was the degree. I remember sitting in a countrywide meeting issue of Gypsy sites, which is a very contentious one. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:19] Job: 008752 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o006_mark_uncorrected ev6 23-12.xml
Ev 90 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
20 January 2011 Mr Clive Betts MP
There is a need nationally for us to have sufficient the rule of law at local and regional level, and it was sites for Gypsies and Travellers to go on so that they under the auspices of the Congress that the European don’t illegally camp and cause all the problems we Charter of Local Self-Government was established. know that illegal encampments cause. There are going My further understanding is that we send lots of to be tensions in those areas, but there ought to be a councillors from this country to become members of better way of resolving them. I don’t think that means this Congress, which meets twice a year in Strasburg shoving everything down and pretending there’s no and is funded, to the extent of at least £6 million, by national need, but neither is it about being so the Council of Europe itself. We send these members prescriptive at the centre that you upset everyone to the Congress, as do 47 other European countries, locally. and they then have the ability under their constitution to, in a sense, police what they have in their Charter. Q279 Andrew Griffiths: Yes, but the reality is that Isn’t that a better way forward—to effectively give you open the papers today and you see the Prime these people the opportunity to pass comment on what Minister being criticised by a mum because of the lack they think is happening in the United Kingdom; to of respite care provision for her mentally handicapped visit us to see what’s happening on the ground, then child, which is a provision that the local authority, the if they come up with critical reports, we can debate county council, is responsible for. That’s not a them in Parliament, your Committee can look at them Government provision. So Ministers will always and so on—rather than try and entrench what is ultimately be held accountable. effectively an advisory document, the European Mr Betts: But that leads on to the other point, that Charter of Local Self-Government, within our own until we have some system of local finance that allows domestic law? Won’t your proposal lead to exactly the more money to be raised locally, and more same conflicts that we have as a result of entrenching accountability for how it’s spent locally, we’re always the European Convention on Human Rights in our law going to get that. But I think one of the other phrases in the form of the Human Right Act 1998? was, “The Prime Minister is in danger of becoming Mr Betts: Well, I’m not sure, on the second point, that the mayor of England”—not this Prime Minister but that has caused us problems. I think it’s more the fact prime ministers in general—and people just hold them that they’re now with UK judges rather than with to account for everything. European Court of Human Rights judges, in that you don’t have to bypass the UK legal system. On the Q280 Chair: If I might just follow on from Andrew. other point, quite frankly, I don’t think I want to give Where there is a settlement, for example in Wales or a blind bit of notice to a few councillors coming over Northern Ireland or whatever, certainly within from other countries and policing our system and Parliament, the Speaker will say, “That is not a matter issuing a report. for the Secretary of State”. In a sense, it’s a two-way Sometimes I’m critical, and I know you’ve asked street. If people take the responsibility they will be questions of local representatives at your inquiry held to account for it; if they can stand up and say, about why they haven’t stood up and shouted more. I “Sorry, that’s not something that is in my jurisdiction; think they’re almost at the point of thinking it isn’t I can oversee the whole policy but not the minutiae”, worthwhile in the current arrangements that exist in you’ll still get political knock-about—we know that— this country; they are a subservient form of but if there’s a framework it makes it much easier to government and they get given what central manage at parliamentary level. Government gives to them, and I think that’s how they Mr Betts: I think Andrew was right when he said that feel. They ought to be a bit more proactive in coming central Government was always going to have its forward and saying, “Look, Government, you’ve priorities, but for heaven’s sake, let local government agreed to this charter, but what you’re doing is be responsible for implementing, with the best local inconsistent with it”. However, I’m not sure that that solutions, at local level. would make a great deal of difference. I think we have Chair: I’m keen that we don’t offend our guest by to take a leap forward, a step forward, to change the wandering too much into the detail that is his relationship. Committee’s responsibility rather than what our responsibility is about. Should the relationship be Q282 Mr Chope: That’s very interesting, because at codified? If so, what would be appropriate? How the moment I’m charged by a Committee in the would we entrench that? Those things are very clearly Council of Europe with looking at the value for in our terms of reference, so we’ll focus on that. money we get from the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. Your response indicates that Q281 Mr Chope: That brings me on to the question we’re not getting very good value, and one of our I was going to ask. I don’t know whether you’ve ever ideas is that we might get better value and there’d been a member of the Congress of Local and Regional be more direct accountability if, for example, the UK Authorities in your long and distinguished career. contribution was funded by the Local Government Mr Betts: Not that I recollect, just offhand. I’ve been Association directly and that the LGA paid. Then they so many places that it’s difficult to answer. would expect that the people who went off to this Mr Chope: But my understanding is that members of Congress would take a more active part in it and so the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities are on. charged by the Council of Europe with the That’s by the bye. Your idea is essentially an advisory responsibility of promoting the values of the Council one, isn’t it? This charter talks about proportionality, of Europe in relation to democracy, human rights and acting on the importance of interests—all that sort of cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:19] Job: 008752 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o006_mark_uncorrected ev6 23-12.xml
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence Ev 91
20 January 2011 Mr Clive Betts MP stuff. If we incorporate that into our law we’d create area. So you’d still have the same problem of, as you even more work, wouldn’t we, for the High Court in would see it, interference from the centre but it would judicial review and legal challenges? be a whole lot more complicated than it is at the Mr Betts: Of course that’s always possible. You get moment. challenges now about responsibilities between central Mr Betts: I’m not sure you could get anything much and local government. The Secretary of State for more complicated than the current system of local Communities and Local Government has been in the government finance, but my understanding, going courts with regard to the regional special strategy, so back to when I was on the council in Sheffield in the you’ll never get the courts out of this. You mentioned 1980s, is that the change in the centralisation of the a framework within which relationships operate. business rate came at the same time as the There are a series of principles here. I accept they are introduction of the poll tax. The two went together open to interpretation, and any set of principles are. because the rating system as a whole was abolished. I was trying to draw the distinction between Previously, we had rates for domestic and business something that isn’t set in stone, like the European properties, which were linked together. Charter of Self-Government—it doesn’t set in stone There was a domestic rate deduction in relation to tax. the absolute responsibilities for particular services in Essentially, the rate in the pound was fixed and you a way I think the concordat did and was, therefore, could only increase one at the same percentage you more frozen in time. It lays down a basic set of increased the other. So that’s the system, as it was, principles on which you can judge the actions of and I think you could link council tax back to business central Government in relation to local government. rates so you could only increase one at the same rate Then you have a more dynamic situation where you as the other. If you do something like that, that have an agreement on what powers are devolved to wouldn’t be a great problem. But the difficulty is: if local government, which can change over time and you don’t put some responsibility for raising business can be done by parliamentary agreement and local rates back to local government, where else do you referendums to back them up, so the two go together. create the base for raising local taxation in a way that So I don’t think this is going to achieve a permanent frees local government up? status quo. I think it sets a basis on which those The other thing I would say is that even when we relationships will be judged in the future. had business rates in that way—and recognising some Mr Chope: Uniform business rates: I can’t let that go authorities have a greater capacity to raise business unchallenged, because I was the Minister responsible rates than others—the equalisation process on needs when we brought in uniform business rates, and we and resources was done in those days. As long as you did so, because the power of some councils that had keep it to about one-third of total Government revenue a disproportionately large number of businesses and and allow them to raise two thirds themselves and substantial revenue from business rates. They were have central Government grant for one third, which pushing up the business rates in their areas, thereby then can operate that redistribution system, you can causing a problem for the national economy. The make it work, and we did it before the poll tax came consequence of very high business rates in places like in. We had a system that worked and it was certainly Liverpool—I’m not talking about Sheffield no more complicated, in my experience, than the necessarily—was that businesses were being driven current system. out of those areas. They certainly weren’t being attracted in. Q283 Mrs Laing: I think we’ve just about covered Ultimately Government was having to take everything. Can I just clarify something? In responsibility for picking up the tab for the considering what codification would achieve, would it wastelands, so Government decided that we would be right to say that if, as at present, you don’t know remove from local authorities their discretion to where the buck stops, and if you don’t know where penalise businesses, raise more income locally, and the responsibility lies either with local government or introduce the uniform business rate. The consequence with central Government or with another tier of local of that uniform business rate is that all the money government, effectively responsibility lies nowhere? comes into the centre and is then distributed from the Mr Betts: Very often, that is the case, but generally centre back to local authorities. Your idea of saying, speaking it tends to lie with central Government in “We’ll abolish the uniform business rate and let most cases, I think, or central Government thinks it individual councils recover all the money from their does and that’s where some of the tensions come in. own local businesses”, might work very well in We just discussed Ministers taking responsibility for London or in Sheffield or in the centre of Liverpool, things they aren’t really responsible for. but it wouldn’t work very well in those parts of the country where there isn’t much in terms of business Q284 Mrs Laing: Certainly. I think your description rate revenue and where there isn’t much business about the outside view of the Baby P situation sums value. it up brilliantly. I like the logic of your description of Even then, if you did abolish the uniform business why there should be no capping—and it is a perfectly rate, you would have to have a more complicated logical situation. If the voters in the local authority grant system whereby you redistributed or took away were to elect an extreme party to run that local from the richer councils, in terms of business revenue, authority, and that extreme party was to put up local a proportion of that revenue, brought it back to the taxes enormously and follow through other policies of centre and then had to redistribute it to the councils which none of us might approve but which would be who do not have so much business property in their their policies, in that case, should central Government cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [24-01-2013 12:19] Job: 008752 Unit: PG06 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/008752/008752_o006_mark_uncorrected ev6 23-12.xml
Ev 92 Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Evidence
20 January 2011 Mr Clive Betts MP stand back and do nothing because there is autonomy you have to go through a process of analysing each and would the voters who chose that party just have Bill against it, it will focus minds on what is to live with it? happening and where those extra responsibilities lie. Mr Betts: Yes, to some extent. I think there’s a It might be right that central Government does it—it difference between a party whose views you don’t might be agreed at the end of the day—but at least it agree with, who come in and raise taxes beyond that will be highlighted, then if you go on and have more which most people in Parliament or Government formal agreements between Parliament and local might think is appropriate, and a party that came in councils about where responsibilities lie and what and was corrupt in some form. I think there has to be powers can be devolved, that adds a further bulwark a fall-back point, and I talked about some cases where against this sort of thing happening. there is just incompetence where the Local Government Association may be able to help. There Q286 Chair: I think we’ve seen from our witnesses maybe has to be a fall-back power where an authority that codification or a framework need not necessarily is absolutely corrupt. And authorities also have to be on the European basis or on the European model. have regard for central Government policies in a A number of witnesses came up with certain things variety of ways. that they felt should be in a code. What we’ve done That’s true in every country in the world. I take the as a Committee is ask one of our witnesses to talk to Swedish model where social services have devolved all the other witnesses and see if there’s some responsibility, but there are requirements about certain common ground there. Would your Committee be standards that central Government lays down. Now, in amenable to interacting with us as that development the end, central Government can intervene to enforce takes place, and trying to draft something sensible that those standards or the courts can intervene. That’s the then perhaps both Committees could discuss, or you other possibility and you can just take a council to could help advise this Committee on a way forward? court for not fulfilling the requirements that are laid Mr Betts: I would hope so, Graham. I obviously upon it. So it’s not a complete separation. You’re not haven’t talked to the Committee about it, but that’s creating a series of independent republics through this a logical approach to joint working, which gives us process, but I think it’s about rebalancing the something that is appropriate for our needs and relationship. circumstances in this country. I’ve quoted the European Charter, because it’s the best thing I’ve Q285 Mrs Laing: On the other side of the coin—the seen. I’m not saying it can’t be improved and indeed amount of work that is given to local authorities to the requirement, if you adopt the European Charter, is act as agents of central Government—do you or your that you only have to take up so many of the articles. Committee have a view on how codification might You don’t automatically have to take all of them up. solve that problem? I get complaints from my own So there is a selective process there. district council, very reasonably, that the I think it’s a good basis to start from, but I’m perfectly Government—I am, of course, referring to the last amenable about going back to the Committee and Government—required so much of them. It was saying, “We have an offer here to try and work always sending out tasks that had to be done—and we something up that deals with our particular UK all know what they are because we passed the laws requirements”, and that seems to be a very good way that let them happen—of one kind or another, which forward. cost an enormous amount of money to the local Chair: Great. Well, I think we should all keep talking authority, but no funding came from central on this. The Committee has certainly not made its Government to enable the tasks to be done. Is there a mind up one way or the other on a code—or not a view on that? code—and on whether to progress that or not. We’re Mr Betts: Yes. All governments do it. still in the throes of thinking about these issues but, Mrs Laing: Yes, they do. nonetheless, I think if we continue to talk between the Mr Betts: There’s 140 order-making powers in the two Committees that can only be beneficial to all of Localism Bill; Lord Heseltine’s bonfire of the us. If there are no more questions, Clive—Chair— quangos. There were so many more orders within a thank you very much for attending this morning. few months of that measure being announced. Of Mr Betts: Thank you very much, Chair. course they do it—they can’t resist it. It highlights the Chair: Thank you very much for your extremely issue. They have to go through a process. The helpful and pertinent comments. European Charter is the basic set of principles, but if
Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited 01/2013 008752 19585