More accurately, since Scottish and Welsh devolution in the
last decade, England is centralised. Does this matter? If we believe that
decisions are best made, or even influenced, by those most affected by them,
the answer is ‘yes’.
Localist solutions are better if there is recognition that
different needs and views should be reflected in different service provision,
even if there is a common policy framework or over-arching set of objectives. There
is real concern about the growing disconnect between politicians who govern and
the people who are governed.
Making decisions locally may help save democracy itself, if
electors can see their votes change things.
There is unlikely to be an English Parliament. There is not
going to be any re-creation of the regions. If devolution is going to occur, it
will be through the development of enhanced powers and responsibilities for
local authorities. Fundamentally, localism will only work if elected
representatives are accountable for decisions.
Wider strategic decision making beyond individual councils
is likely to come from councils coming together voluntarily. The process of
creating combined authorities for city regions to oversee economic development
across a travel-to-work area began in Manchester
and is now being activated in Sheffield and Leeds .
The West Lothian question
has been a distraction from the creation of a dynamic democracy, fit for this
century, where subsidiarity is the principle that is applied appropriately but
differently in different parts of the country. We need to be more relaxed about
asymmetrical governance.
Is fundamental devolution a real possibility? There is increasing
cross-party agreement in Parliament that councils are capable of delivering far
more than their existing powers and responsibilities allow. Unfortunately, the
current coalition government has supported localism in name only; it has no
core delivery strategy.
Furthermore, this government has consistently fudged the
issue as to whether localism is about transferring powers to locally
accountable and elected bodies or simply, as part of its objective of having a
smaller state, creating new organisations such as free schools, which have
little or no accountability. The decision to pursue single purpose elections,
such as for police and crime commissioners further muddles the picture. If Whitehall silos are a
problem, why create new silos at a local level?
Subsidiarity cannot stop at the town hall. Up and down the
country, councils of all political persuasions have developed devolved
influencing, decision-making and budget-holding arrangements appropriate to
their local communities. Quite rightly, there is no one-size-fits-all model but
a variety of approaches to suit local circumstances.
When more powers are transferred to local level, there will
still be a need for overall national approaches on some issues. Minimum
standards may be thought appropriate in education or care. Councils could
deliver these, while enabling local variations in delivery and additional
improvements according to local wishes.
Innovation and new ways of working are more likely to occur
in a multitude of local authorities than in one Whitehall department. People, locally and
nationally, will still want to know that they are getting good value from
devolved services. Therefore, localism must bring with it an expectation of
continuous improvement, tools for performance evaluation and transparency in
outcomes.
Devolution needs to be bold and radical, going beyond those
services traditionally within local government’s remit. There is a crying need
for policies on economic development, skills, training and transport
infrastructure to be determined locally, better related to local circumstances
and the needs of local businesses.
The key issues in any devolutionary settlement are:
- Councils have to be at the heart of localism, not bypassed by it;
- Although serious consideration should be given to a more formal constitutional settlement, defining central-local relations, it is a cultural change that is required. We will have to ditch the notion that the secretary of state is responsible for everything – a challenge for the press, the public and politicians;
- Localism will require the devolution of fund raising as well as spending. Linking economic development to financial returns for councils and their communities makes economic as well as political sense;
- There
will still need to be a mechanism for the redistribution of resources
within
- Councils will require more freedom, within prudential financial guidelines, to borrow for long-term investment as well as to raise revenue;
- Challenging the postcode lottery and arguing positively for a postcode choice has to be at the heart of any new approach. It is ironic that our centralised governance structure has managed to produce inequalities in income, gross domestic product and service delivery far greater than in far more decentralised countries.
This
article first appeared in the Local Government Chronicle on 6 February 2014
