Gordon Brown holds out the promise of constitutional change, not for its own sake but to make government more accountable and closer to its citizens.
His rhetoric is attractive, but the real test will be what actually happens.
Local government will provide the key test, but it is not clear what policies for local government the new prime minister will favour.
Sir Michael Lyons has been optimistic in his public comments, seeing in Treasury budget statements a readiness to consider seriously the key issues and many of his report’s proposals.
This optimistic response contrasts with the hasty rejection of much of the Lyons report by the local government minister, Phil Woolas, from whom one might have hoped for a more positive and considered response. Policies for local government will provide a good testing ground for what Mr Brown’s rhetoric means in practice, since local government can provide a route to achieving his stated aims.
If he wants to bring government closer to the citizen, local government can provide a building block, as long as its role is recognised and it seeks new ways of involving citizens in government. Government cannot get closer to the citizen if central government is remote from citizens’ concerns, many of which only have meaning at the local level.
If one wants to enhance accountability, it must be clear what local authorities are accountable for. There is no point in an elected local authority that merely does what central government wants. That leads to accountability confusion and local authorities being accountable to central government rather than to those who have elected them.
This same confusion is found in the system – or non-system – of local government finance, and it makes the recommendations in the Lyons report that responsibilities must be clarified so important. The concerns of local government go beyond its own responsibilities.
Local authorities operate within a confused and confusing network of appointed boards or various forms of quango.
That network does not meet the first requirement of accountability: that citizens should know who is governing them. Far from providing necessary transparency, current arrangements mean that few citizens understand who is responsible for what in the maze of local governance, and how the various bodies can be held accountable.
There is no way that many of these bodies can be held accountable by local people, on whose behalf they are supposed to act.
The creation of local strategic partnerships (LSP), and a complex of other partnerships, far from resolving this confusion of accountability, merely adds to it. If a citizen is told the LSP has decided something, the inevitable response is to ask what the LSP is. Nor is there any clear answer to the question: ‘To whom is this LSP accountable?’
Any serious attempt at constitutional reform to achieve accountable government and get close to the citizen has to confront this confusion at the local level, as well as the weakening of local accountability.
The test of Mr Brown’s approach to local government must be whether he recognises the importance of these issues and takes action to build on local authorities as the elected representatives of local people.
A programme to revitalise accountable local government close to the citizen is needed. Such a programme could contain:
l A new constitutional settlement enshrining the role of local government and clarifying its relationship with central government. Such a constitutional settlement could be given expression in a bill of rights to mark its importance.
l An independent commission to be the guardian of this settlement. It should be charged with reporting to Parliament and to the public at large on any changes in the central-local relationship and with preparing an annual report on the state of the central-local relationship. It could take the form of a Standing Royal Commission or a joint committee of both houses of Parliament.
l Reform of local government finance, which is a priority for effective accountability. This reform should embody the key proposals of the Lyons report, adopt some of the proposals put forward for longer-term consideration and go beyond them to reduce the dependence of local authorities on grants.
The Government should immediately reconsider its commitment to retain capping. Capping is inconsistent with the principles of accountability, since it makes local authorities accountable to central government for decisions on local taxation and local expenditure rather than to those who elect them.
l Policies for the devolution of power and flexibility to local authorities. The most important changes should not be new powers but the removal of constraints on existing powers. The response to the Lifting the Burdens Task Force will be a critical test of the Government’s attitude to building government close to the people and of its readiness to overcome the reluctance of its departmental silos to devolve powers to local authorities.
l A review of the complex entities of local governance. This should be launched to resolve weaknesses in local accountability and ensure that local government is close to the citizen.
l Electoral reform. This should strengthen the electoral base of local government as an essential condition of effective accountability.
We do not imagine the Brown Government will necessarily carry out the full programme set out here, but such a programme is a good test of Mr Brown’s rhetoric.
A radical programme is necessary to give reality to the principles of accountability and closeness to the citizen, while the weakness in the present arrangements must be recognised.
The programme suggested above is essential, given the present confusion over local government’s role and accountability. Constitutional reform cannot ignore these issues. n
George Jones is emeritus professor of Government at the LSE. John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV.
Potholes: Treating the illness not just the symptom
With the publication of the ALARM survey, chair of the Asphalt Industry Alliance, David Giles, talks to LocalGov about investing in local roads.
