Double trouble for devolution

16 Jun 06
PETER HETHERINGTON | Last month, in an extensive Cabinet reshuffle that had even less regard for that elusive concept of joined-up government — does anything change? — the prime minister sent the new communities and local government minister a crib sheet.

Last month, in an extensive Cabinet reshuffle that had even less regard for that elusive concept of joined-up government — does anything change? — the prime minister sent the new communities and local government minister a crib sheet.

He told Ruth Kelly to push ahead with a ‘radical, devolutionary white paper’ concentrating, in part, on ‘empowering local communities’ to achieve ‘democratic renewal’. On first reading, it seemed that the reforming agenda of Kelly’s predecessor, David Miliband, was still on track.

For the past few months, councils in England, heartened by the warm words of an inclusive and engaging Miliband, now environment and rural affairs supremo, had been gearing up for change. The Local Government Association had largely bought into Miliband’s ‘double devolution’ agenda: namely more power for town halls in return for councils passing some functions to neighbourhoods.

With other bodies, the LGA was feeding into the white paper process, while producing a complementary report (Closer to people and places: a new vision for local government). This called for a new settlement between Whitehall and town halls, a vastly slimmed down inspection and performance framework, and a string of new freedoms for councils. For a change, this was no direct challenge to government. In tune with thinking from the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, it was meant to show that authorities had largely accepted ‘double devolution’ and were willing to work with ministers to achieve it.

But Kelly, far from pushing ahead with her predecessor’s agenda, has delayed publication of the white paper until the autumn. There is also every indication that the finished product will be ‘consultative’ (ie greenish) and not necessarily provide the outline of a new local government Bill, which might be published next February. She wanted to consider ‘how complex and difficult local government restructuring’ would affect the role of the new Department for Communities and Local Government.

Change is certainly afoot in the DCLG. Bluntly, a reorganising department formed from the rump of the ODPM has its work cut out with an expanded agenda embracing equality and social cohesion as well as community governance, local government, housing and planning. Thankfully, it has a relatively fresh permanent secretary, Peter Housden, who had a long track record in local government (chief executive, education director, teacher) before arriving in Whitehall.

It’s tempting to state the obvious: that the reshuffle underlines the PM’s indifference to a domestic agenda, preferring the quick political fix, the short-lived, headline-grabbing initiative — soon forgotten — to policy co-ordination and forward planning. Perish the thought!

But are there signs of the PM (or, more accurately, his closest advisers) going cool on the ‘double devolution’ front? And is there now enthusiasm for that other Miliband initiative involving, potentially, new powers for emerging city-regions, such as Greater Manchester and the (Birmingham-based) East Midlands? Here there appears to be some agreement on new executive boards of councillors running functions such as transport, highways and strategic planning across traditional authority boundaries.

The LGA, in its recent paper, suggested enhanced Local Area Agreements as a possible vehicle for city-regions, and counties as well, to co-ordinate transport alongside planning, economic development and skills. Significantly, the LGA thinks it has a sympathetic ear in one branch of government: the Treasury.

In a revealing letter to the Guardian recently, Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the LGA chair, praised Chancellor Gordon Brown for coming ‘on board’ the good ship ‘double devolution’ and ending the Whitehall ‘target culture’ by giving councils and communities more power. But in that other branch of government in Downing Street, there are clearly those who see a stormy passage for the ship. Is it heading for the rocks?

A more immediate issue is now emerging, namely the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review and its impact on the future direction of local and regional initiatives, particularly the relatively high-spending regional development agencies (which are curiously largely funded from the DCLG spending block yet administered from the Department of Trade and Industry).

Will they be pared down and brought back under a wider DCLG agenda which, some believe, should address local economies? And, whatever the briefings to the contrary, will wider local government reform prove attractive if it comes with a price tag at a time of tight spending? The people running the DCLG — as well as the wider local government world — would doubtless like to know.

Did you enjoy this article?

AddToAny

Top