17 November 2006
Against all the odds, the local government white paper not only turned up, it also went further than expected on the path to devolution, argues Chris Leslie
So now we know. The local government white paper has been published and, despite the gloomy predictions of vacuous content, it actually turns out to be a reasonably meaty document, presaging a great deal of praiseworthy policy.
Sure, this is anything but the final word in local government reform, tackling only those areas of policy where a pragmatic secretary of state would dare to tread. Ministers with responsibility for local government reform have always had to stretch themselves between two poles – on the one hand, placating an ever-more frustrated local government community increasingly determined to shape its own affairs, and, on the other, arm-twisting secretaries of state in other government departments, who are far less driven by the virtues of devolution.
Given the gut instinct of most national politicians to cling to the levers of power – the perennial obstacle to Whitehall reform – it is in some ways a near miracle that any worthwhile white paper has been produced at all. But it has arrived, and in better shape than expected.
The timing of the white paper was always odd, especially given its relationship with the parallel universe that is the Lyons Inquiry, due to publish in only a matter of weeks. While some of us might privately believe it would have been more sensible to have waited for the inquiry's advice before publishing government policy plans, in the great sweep of things such minor misdemeanours can be forgiven.
The white paper helps to advance the cause of devolution in three specific ways. First, there are helpful clarifications about the maturing relationship between Whitehall and town hall. The negotiated priorities between centre and locality are expressed in a stronger and far more significant package of whittled-down targets, freedoms from unnecessary inspection and a more comprehensive Local Area Agreement process.
The extension of authorities' powers to lead investigation into the fuller array of local service delivery – even across the local agencies and quangos long-regarded as out of bounds for councillor scrutiny – could be a far-reaching change, if elected members use this to its fullest potential. There remain far more radical devolutionary objectives that we at the New Local Government Network will continue to campaign for, but it would be churlish not to recognise the worthwhile direction of travel Local Government Secretary Ruth Kelly has embarked on.
Second, if local government is to take on greater powers from Whitehall, it must be 'fit for purpose'. The white paper helps this process by firing the starting gun on structural change and, most importantly, by placing the greatest importance on strong local leadership. The open invitation to two-tier council areas to reorganise and 'unitarise' will provoke much discussion between chief executives and elected members across suburban England. The long-dormant tussle between the common sense of merger efficiencies and the political expediency of the status quo has been resuscitated.
The most distinct element of the white paper could arguably drive out weak leadership from local government completely. This insists that all councils institute a fixed four-year term for their leaders, who will hold default control of executive power. It is this determination to create stable and robust leadership in all towns and cities that, I suspect, will be remembered most vividly from this white paper.
Third, the prospect for re-energising the citizen's involvement in shaping public policy is improved, thanks to the community empowerment proposals. If these work as envisaged, they could deal local residents a far stronger hand in shaping their own destiny. Parish and town councils will gradually cover a greater portion of the country, a feather in the cap for their representative body, the National Association of Local Councils, and for the Young Foundation, which have advocated this approach.
But this has provoked a guarded response from principal authorities weary of the added consultation burden they will need to get used to. Supplementing the resurgence of parishes comes a new 'Community Call for Action', empowering residents and backbench councillors to demand investigations and inquiries into local issues across a wider range of services.
If the Bill due to follow the white paper does nothing other than these three things, it will be remembered as refreshingly democratic. There are many who will find it easy to criticise the government for lacking bravery. But we should recognise that change has its enemies, that the inertia in existing arrangements is enormously powerful, and that there are rarely trouble-free moments in the political cycle for white papers to grip every issue with the firmness some of us would want to see. These three advances are significant and highly commendable.
There are other issues highlighted in the white paper. When the NLGN published the pamphlet I co-authored with Treasury ministers Ed Balls and John Healey before the summer, there were reports of allegedly diverging opinion between departments on the regions and city-regions agenda. It is heartening, therefore, to see that chapter four of the white paper articulates the argument we were making at that time: that growth and prosperity need to be the drivers for change, and that all areas of England deserve the powers and opportunities to capitalise on their specialist traits and overcome barriers to inward investment.
Rather than have new governance structures designed in SW1 and imposed on local authorities, councils are encouraged to devise their own alliances and partnerships, shaped around local knowledge of wider economic areas and calculated to fit within regional development agencies' regional economic strategies. The white paper is right to link these governance questions into the Comprehensive Spending Review process.
Of course, the gaping hole in the roadmap ahead will be for Sir Michael Lyons to try to fill with his recommendations on finance, which we now await more eagerly than ever. This is such a crucial piece of the jigsaw, yet it is also the most awkward to fit into place. Lyons will need to be incredibly astute, both politically and fiscally, to devise solutions sufficiently radical that they are noticeable and transformative, but not so radical that they cause major political headaches in middle England. Devolution of power must involve devolved control over revenue and expenditure, both of which are heavily determined by Whitehall at present.
It is particularly on the former where change still seems a long way off. Even if Lyons bites the bullet and makes significant recommendations, I suspect we'll have to wait until the CSR for a government response. If that response is positive – rather than returning to the drawing board, the historic pattern of events – two further hurdles will need to be negotiated. These are: undoubtedly contentious legislation and a looming general election. The omens are not great. Already, the papers have been filled with hysterical overreactions to rumoured council tax considerations.
So, for communities wishing to control more of their financial priorities and destiny, there is still some way to go. Nevertheless, we should be thankful for every step forward on the long road to localism, and this white paper does take us in the right direction. As one chapter reveals itself, the others will now appear, with greater expectations, as we all wonder whether Lyons will be the knight in shining armour.
Chris Leslie is the director of the New Local Government Network
PFnov2006
