01 June 2007
Ahead of taking up the premiership, Gordon Brown has promised a redistribution of power down from central to local government. Is this just fantasy politics or will the new PM deliver the goods?
Gordon Brown says his premiership will start with 'governing in a different way'. We cannot know what is in his mind, but we can see what has gone into it. Formal statements, politics and the development of Brown's thinking at the Treasury all point towards incremental but significant devolution. He used his launch speech to promise that, just as he gave up economic power as chancellor so, as prime minister, he will give power to Parliament and forge agreement on a new constitutional settlement.
The political context suggests this priority has been carefully chosen. It helps redress Brown's reputation for central control, creating a symbolic break from the Blair years without disowning them. Delivery would surprise the public and encourage greater trust in politicians. It would remove the opposition parties' best case against the new premier.
Possibly most important are signs that both Brown and the Treasury have become convinced of the evidential case for devolution. Since 2003, they have produced reports and speeches on this theme. In 2004, Devolving decision-making made the management case that public service reform required devolution. Today, the Treasury review of economic development is driven by the conviction that economic growth depends on devolving decisions to sub-regional levels.
So what early decisions could Brown take as the prime minister who modernised by giving power away?
Implementing the short-term proposals of the Lyons report would be a start. Swift action to cut targets and specific grants, reform the complex Local Authority Business Growth Incentive scheme and deliver a supplementary business rate would exceed expectations. But these ideas are already on the policy agenda and require time for the details to be worked out. More dramatic action is possible.
Brown could empower Parliament by giving it a role as neutral umpire in negotiations between central and local government. For instance, arguments over central funding for duties imposed on councils have long been a source of tension. Our centralised system of government permits the new premier to change the rules by administrative fiat, instantly enabling parliamentary select committees, advised by the Audit Commission, to assess the cost of centrally imposed duties.
The Local Government Bill is accelerating joined-up public service delivery through Local Area Agreements. Disputes will soon emerge over when ministers should allow locally devised plans to override national targets. Again, Brown could give select committees the final say. Public scrutiny would encourage both local and national government to raise their game as they develop better public services.
Traditional Whitehall reforms could also signal future change. Our centralised system means that it could happen in the first days of the new premiership.
The restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly makes a case for a merged Department of the Nations; but this might intensify the West Lothian question. A better idea would be a Department of Devolution including the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices, but also the local government parts of the Department for Communities and Local Government and the regional development agencies within the Department of Trade and Industry. The autonomy of national assemblies and the Scottish Parliament would require this department to work through influence rather than command and control. Whitehall would benefit from learning new techniques for spreading national policy across the UK.
This would signal future reforms, giving local government the kind of autonomy already held by national assemblies and the Scottish Parliament. In this way, it could help to create the national consensus on a programme of constitutional reform that Brown has promised.
So much power given away so swiftly has the ring of fantasy football, not realpolitik. For the cynics there is one reform that might sound more likely. Since 1997, Brown has used business leaders to conduct his major policy reviews. He has faith in their advice. Yet when multinationals devolve, they do not give up strategic control — they move power down to the front line and up to HQ, hollowing out middle management.
Applying this approach to the government of Britain suggests not only devolution to local institutions, but also centralisation from Whitehall's departments to the prime minister's office. Moving the management of Public Service Agreements from the Treasury to the Cabinet Office would give the prime minister more strategic control while allowing local institutions more operational power.
Brown could both devolve power and increase strategic control. Will he? We cannot know his mind — but we can see the opportunity.
Dick Sorabji is acting director of the New Local Government Network
PFjun2007
