Briefing Paper Briefing Paper ASPECTS OF LOCALISM NOVEMBER 2011 Localism: Briefing Paper 2 Contents 1 THE RECENT HISTORICAL CONTEXT 3 2 WHAT IS LOCALISM? 4 3 BENEFITS AND RISKS 5 4 SOME ISSUES FOR DEBATE 7 5 CURRENT PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE 7 http://www.re-constitution.org.uk Localism: Briefing Paper 3 1 The recent historical context The War Years – the height of localism - Heyday of Local Government: expansion of loCal authority intervention in the years after 1900. - Public Services: WW1 saw a dramatiC extension of muniCipal aCtion as CounCils organised an inCreasing number of loCal services, inCluding food supply and medical services. It was the prelude to the dramatiC expansion of muniCipal aCtivity in the years after 1918, an expansion in whiCh loCal Labour movements played a key role. - After 1918 muniCipal aCtivity inCreased extensively in the provision of mediCal Care and eduCation. Central government spending on education fell dramatiCally and this power was transferred to loCal authorities whose spending rose from £24 million in 1919-20 to £47 million in1937-381. - Housing: The role of Councils was expanded in the provision of housing as Parliamentary legislation from 1919 gave CounCils generous subsidies. As a result, over a million CounCil houses were built between the wars. - The vivaCity of loCal government Can be seen in the total local authority spending figures whiCh rose from £140 million in 1913 to £533 million in 19392. The 70s and 80s – Shifts towards centralisation - Consultation: Between 1970 and 1974, the tone of Centre-loCal relations was one of partnership. Consultation was the “normal” style of Central-loCal relations throughout the postwar period until the mid-1970s. - Corporatism: Under the Labour government of 1974-79, local authorities were Caught up in the corporatism of government at the time. Like trade unions, local authorities were co-opted into government deCision-making. - Confrontation/centralisation: After 1979, the era of Consensus and Cooperation Came to an end with the Conservative administrations whiCh tended to adopt a Confrontational approaCh to loCal government. Margaret ThatCher did not aCCept the demoCratiC qualifiCations of loCal government, beCause the turnout in local elections is so low, whereas she believed her government had a national mandate to Carry out their eConomiC and social poliCies3. The Conservative Administration 1979– 1997. An era of central governance. - Privatization and Housing: The privatization of housing aimed to remove the stoCk of publiC housing from local authority and put it in private-sector hands. - Education: SinCe the 1944 EduCation ACt, local authorities had been given a virtually free hand in deCiding the sChool CurriCulum. This Came to an end in 1988 with the Education Reform ACt. The Act weakened, and even ended, loCal authority Control over sChools. The new opportunities for parents to opt out of loCal Control meant that fisCal power was transferred to Central government. - The marketisation of services: The forCed aCCeptance of Competitive tendering entailed a fundamental revision of the power of local authorities as they Came to be seen as agenCies for the delivery of national poliCy. 1 The Remaking of the British Working Class, 1840-1940. Mike Savage and Andrew Miles. London: Routledge, 1994. Pp. 69. 2 Ibid. 3 UK government & politics. Andy Williams. Oxford, Heinemann Educational, 1995. http://www.re-constitution.org.uk Localism: Briefing Paper 4 2 What is localism? I. POSSIBLE DEFINITIONS The Big Society The Concept was developed by the Conservative Party and formed part of their 2010 eleCtion manifesto. The Coalition doCument, Building the Big Society, states that; We want to give citizens, communities and local government the power and information they need to come together, solve the problems they face and build the Britain they want... Only when people and communities are given more power and take more responsibility can we achieve fairness and opportunity for all.4 Localism and decentralisation Localism Can narrowly be defined as the devolution of power to local government. DeCentralisation, in this sense, is “subloCalism”5; the broader dispersal of power to civil soCiety (individuals, Charities, Community aCtion groups, other voluntary organisations, and Commercial organisations). The two terms have arguably been Conflated by the Coalition’s Concept of the Big Society (involving many aspeCts of devolution to the “sublocal”) and its legislative vehiCle (the perhaps misleadingly named Localism Bill)6. EriC PiCkles, SeCretary of State for Communities and Local Government, defines the term broadly; “Localism is the principle, the mantra, and defines everything we do...”7 Double devolution Devolving power from Central to loCal government, and from there to Citizens, neighbourhoods and the third seCtor. Community Both geographical areas e.g. counties, neighbourhoods, distriCts, parishes and communities of interest, inCluding faith groups, cultural groups, age related groups and speCifiC interest groups. 4 http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/building-big-society_0.pdf 5 Emeritus Professor George Jones, London School of Economics, in oral evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee, reported in House of Commons Research Paper 11/02. 6 When you start to raise "double devolution" or the "Big Society" or decentralising grants, you’re doing it below local government. That’s sublocalism. They should not be allowed to get away with the misuse of language appropriating "localism". Ibid. 7 Eric Pickles, Queen’s Speech Forum, 11 June 2010, http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/corporate/queensspeechforum http://www.re-constitution.org.uk Localism: Briefing Paper 5 II. WHAT DOES IT INVOLVE? Structural reform - InCreasing the operational autonomy of serviCe provider organisations. - Empowering communities to be more involved in delivering serviCes. - Empowering individuals to understand their personal contribution to and gain from publiC services. - Changing models of ownership so that citizens and communities have a stake in the way a service is run. - Improving the mechanisms of aCCountability at the loCal level. Cultural reform - Devolution of frameworks of aCCountability. - Motivation of Communities to take up devolved power; to take over serviCes or assets rather than have the CounCil deliver them. - Establishment of a new Culture of loCal demoCraCy and soCial responsibility. - Change in the role of serviCe professionals; moving from simply providing a one-off serviCe to a passive reCipient to establishing a dynamiC relationship with loCal Communities. 3 Benefits and Risks I. PERCEIVED BENEFITS Improved democracy Greater citizen engagement: - With demoCratic proCesses at both a loCal and national level. - With the proCess of loCal governanCe and of publiC serviCe delivery. Ideological motivation: - Conservative Commitment to a smaller state. - Liberal emphasis on autonomy and self determination. Improved services: - More dynamiC, responsive public services. - Using loCal knowledge, and engaging Communities, allows resourCes to be targeted where they are most needed. - Utilising the “hidden wealth” of Community resources. Political benefit: - Engaging the publiC in tough spending deCisions arguably lessens any sense of resentment generated by the outCome. Cost savings: - Through Creating a leaner central government. - Through taking greater advantage of voluntary effort and improved links with CommerCial partners. A new necessity The current financial climate dictates spending cuts: http://www.re-constitution.org.uk Localism: Briefing Paper 6 - Local government Cannot afford the Current level of serviCe provision: Citizens may have to step into the gap. The current system is unsustainable regardless of the current crisis: - The Current Crisis in publiC finanCes is a prelude to longer term pressures. - Society has to address a range of Complex problems whiCh post-war institutions were not designed to fix: ChroniC health Conditions related to lifestyle, ageing populations, Climate change and anti-social behaviour. - The traditional model of publiC serviCe delivery, prediCated on people passively Consuming services whenever they need them, is unsustainable. Making the most of new opportunities - Rapid teChnologiCal advanCes. - Better informed Citizens. - New rights to information. Perceived problems with the centralised state - It does not prevent soCial inequalities; soCial outcomes of the Current, standardised system vary across the Country. - It fosters a Culture of national standards as an instrument of Control, whiCh inhibits organisational innovation (enCouraging risk aversion and establishing rigid parameters of responsibility whiCh prevent Cross-boundary Collaboration). II. PERCEIVED RISKS Creating regional inequalities: - ReduCed government Capability to plan strategiCally and allocate resourCes where they are most needed. Fragmenting society: - Encouraging Citizens and community organisations to mobilise independently to find loCal solutions to service delivery issues. - Commitments are by nature voluntary, episodiC and driven by partiCular interests and passions: it Cannot be Centrally Co-ordinated. Lack of public demand: - People do not have the time or the desire to engage, they want their CounCillor and the CounCil to deliver for them. - People laCk the neCessary understanding of Complex issues. - CounCillors do not have the time, skills, or resourCes to support localism. Reinforcing social