23 June 2006
Local government reformer Sir Michael Lyons wants more choice at a local level. But, as George Jones and John Stewart argue, it's a controlling central government culture that needs to change
Local government should welcome Sir Michael Lyons' paper, National prosperity, local choice and civic engagement. It makes a strong case for local choice based on local government, not merely for enhancing communities' wellbeing, but also for improving the effectiveness of national government.
The paper, which was published last month, argues that local choice serves the national interest in the provision of services and in the promotion of prosperity and competitiveness. Economic theory and common sense show the best use of scarce resources is through a choice that matches provision to local needs and aspirations.
Lyons exposes the fallacies of the much-quoted postcode lottery, and expresses the case for local choice with a national appeal. Councils have rarely voiced a national justification for more choice, which has contributed to their lack of confidence and
dependence on Whitehall.
The analysis in the report is equally important. It shows how many of the actions of central government have been counter-productive. The proliferation of targets, specific grants and inspections undermine the local choice and innovation necessary for the effective use of resources and for improved performance. Central over-prescription underlies the central-local relationship, not just in these interventions but in the
excessive detail of legislation and regulation.
The principles set out by Lyons provide a firm basis for councils' role and for central-local relations. He calls for choices to be made, as did the Layfield report 30 years ago. Let's hope the government does not avoid them, as it did then.
While the principles set out are clear, there are three problems putting them into practice. The first is: how can the principles recommended be secured, given the attitudes embedded in Whitehall?
To resolve this, Lyons has to understand why central government has pursued self-defeating policies. Previous reports and white papers have recognised the problem and argued for fewer controls, but little has happened. The freedoms and flexibilities looked for in the negotiation of local public services and area agreements have proved elusive.
The answers lie in part in the Whitehall silos, where each department and division focused narrowly on its own particular concerns. Remote from the front line of action, they assumed that policy would not be
implemented unless specified in detail, ironically, by those who had no experience of carrying it out. A distrust of local authorities was embedded in the ignorance of those who worked at the centre.
Fundamental reform is required of central government's structure, processes and, above all, its culture, but that is beyond even Lyons' expanding remit.
If fundamental reform at the centre will not happen, how then can his principles be carried into practice and not be eroded by actions taken by the different parts of central government, impelled by their separate objectives and by their conviction that only they know how to achieve them?
Lyons rightly sees the need to set up defences for his principles, and he proposes a constitutional settlement. That by itself will not resolve the problem, although it is an important step.
Three more steps are required. First, the settlement must be specific, making it difficult to evade and listing what should not happen: for example, preventing specific grants other than those that are time-limited.
Then, the settlement should be enacted in legislation as a Bill of Rights, as proposed by a Labour Party policy statement in 1995. Finally, an independent commission should have responsibility for reporting annually on the operation of the settlement and issuing special reports on breaches of the settlement. The Lyons principles will not be maintained without protection.
The second problem is: how can local authorities' strategic responsibilities for 'place shaping' be ensured, given that many of them lie with other organisations and agencies?
Lyons recognises the problem and sets out a convenor role for local authorities, sustained by the duty to co-operate placed on other public bodies, as suggested in the consultation paper on local strategic partnerships.
More is required if place shaping is to become a reality. The government stresses influence as the means by which local authorities can provide community leadership. It is, however, a strange stance for Whitehall to take, since it endlessly seeks powers for itself to achieve its aims, rather than just relying on its influence. Strategies need levers – a convenor role and a duty to co-operate are unlikely to be enough without the back-up given by powers that confer authority.
Radical solutions are required. All public bodies should be under a statutory obligation not just to
co-operate but to observe the community strategy. A share of the grants given to such bodies should be subject to an assurance by the local authority that they are carrying out the strategy.
Appointment of chairs to local, appointed boards should be made subject to approval by the council. The local authority should have the right to initiate a recall procedure, if the appointed board neglects its role
in carrying out the community strategy. Such
powers would be rarely used, but would provide levers that go beyond the uncertainties of influence.
The third question to be tackled is: how can councils' confidence be developed, given the way their role has been undermined?
Whitehall's centralising policies over the past 25 years have created a sense of dependence. Many councils have become dominated by national needs, rather than community ones. Yet the role that Lyons
proposes demands that local authorities rediscover a confidence in local choice. The role and measures he proposes are the basis for that confidence, but a
response is required from local authorities.
He rightly sees the role of the frontline councillor as critical, since the frustration felt by many in the new political structures is hardly a basis for confident local authorities. The answer lies not just in developing councillors' capacity for influence, but in recognising their power to determine policy and to make local decisions, and in examining how their capacity to
enforce the results of scrutiny can be enhanced.
Local choice has to be based on effective representative democracy, which is meaningless unless representation leads to action. The case for local choice that Lyons made must be understood by all in local authorities, because too many have forgotten it under pressure from national targets and inspectors' views. It should be the starting point for training of both officers and councillors.
The scope for independent action by authorities needs emphasis. 'Never ask for guidance' should be the motto: if you get it, you might not like it: so why ask?
Community strategies directed at place shaping should build confidence. Yet too many community strategies express the same goals in their general and often abstract strategy statements. There is a need to recognise how places differ, and how that diversity can be built on.
Strategies should be sharper, devoting as much attention to what should not happen as to what should. Community strategies can establish a new confidence, but only if they express the distinctive qualities of place, as Steve Leach and Vivien Lowndes argue in their contribution to the recent Solace Foundation publication, The rethinking of local government.
They suggest that community strategies should contain such local priorities as: 'We want this area to change as little as possible. We don't want growth and we'll do all we can to resist it'. Or 'This district has no real identity – we should concentrate on fostering civic pride in the individual towns and villages, not in the district as a whole.' They would be local choices by authorities with the confidence to express them.
Lyons' paper makes real progress, but there are real problems in translating principles into practice. Solving these is the vital step, if his final report is to be more than another lost opportunity, not just for local government but for overcoming fundamental defects in the government of our society as a whole.
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the London School of Economics and John Stewart is emeritus professor of local government at the University of Birmingham
PFjun2006
