While all the main political parties are signed up – in theory – to localism and the rebalancing of central-local relations, little attention has been paid to the relationship between town halls and MPs say George Jones and John Stewart

There was much discussion last year about central-local relations. And while attention has focused on local government’s relationships with the Government, little consideration has been given to its relationships with the UK Parliament.
Interactions between the two levels of elected authorities is a crucial aspect of any central-local relations.
Local councils and the House of Commons are institutions whose legitimacy and authority are conferred by elections. They embody the principles of representative democracy.
The strength and vitality of both the House of Commons and local councils are necessary for effective representative government and democracy. Both institutions have a responsibility to defend and promote their democratic role.
At present, it is easy to ignore the importance of that role. It is fashionable to advocate a reduction in the number of MPs and of councillors, despite the already-small number of elected representatives the UK has, when compared with most countries in Europe.
Championing elections and elected representatives should be a shared task of both local councils and the House of Commons. To defend elected representatives is not to condone their abuse of their position. Defence of the elected principle requires condemnation of abuse of that principle, and recognition that through elections, electors can restore the integrity of the elected principle.
In sharing the defence of the electoral process, local councils and the House of Commons can create a relationship of mutual respect, which has not always been evident. MPs and councillors should recognise and respect the importance of each other’s electoral bases.
Mutual respect should underlie the relationship between MPs and councillors, even when they take opposing views. More direct contacts between them could enhance their mutual respect.
In some European countries, it is common for leading councillors to sit in parliament, whereas in this country it is rare, although not unknown. There are more examples of councillors in the House of Lords. Lord Hanningfield, leader of Essex CC, is the best known.
Membership of Parliament by councillors can strengthen both local councils and parliament. Mutual understanding is better enhanced by such dual membership than by former councillors distancing themselves from local government.
In France, the majority of deputies are also councillors, many of them maires. The practical problems in shared membership need to be on the agenda for discussion.
The relationship between councils and their MPs should be based on mutual respect and acceptance of their respective roles. Issues can properly be raised by MPs on behalf of their constituents who do not readily distinguish the roles of MPs and councillors.
Constituents will raise local issues with MPS in the same way as they raise national issues, such as social security, with councillors.
Elected representatives will always pursue issues on behalf of constituents.
MPs should recognise that issues within local government’s responsibility should be pursued with the council, not with ministers. Councillors should be ready to use MPs to support them in pursuing national issues.
An MP will have views on local issues and on council policies, and the council should be prepared to listen to them and respond, just as MPs should be ready to listen to the council’s views on national policies.
Both must, however, respect the right of the other to make decisions on their own responsibilities, and not seek to undermine those responsibilities, as when an MP seeks ministerial intervention in a council’s affairs.
Regular communications between MPs and local councillors are important. Councils can seek the help of MPs in handling local problems which derive from national policies. MPs can gain valuable information from councils. Often that does not develop because of hostilities or a failure to discuss the relationship. But such discussions involving the council leadership are essential to building an effective relationship.
Arrangements should be agreed for keeping each other informed, for regular meetings and for handling future conflicts.
Arrangements can vary where there are several MPs in the council’s area, and depending on whether the MP’s political party differs from or is the same as the political control of the council.
Whatever the circumstances, discussion is necessary to lay a basis for building and maintaining a constructive ongoing relationship.
Difficulties can arise. The MP’s interventions in the affairs of the authority can be resented, particularly when they include attacks in the media.
MPs may be frustrated by councils’ failure to keep them informed about developments or to pay any attention to their views. When these problems are not discussed, resentment can grow, undermining mutual respect, so essential, especially when there is disagreement over policy.
How parliament relates to local government is a unique relationship. Parliamentary procedures should recognise that this special relationship sustains representative democracy.
The CLG select committee report on the balance of power proposed a joint committee of the Lords and Commons to monitor the central-local relationship, creating a key role for parliament in watching over a constitutional relationship. More could be done to express the special relationship between the House of Commons and local government.
We put forward three proposals: 
l a self-denying ordinance. MPs should not use questions to ministers or adjournment debates to raise issues about the work of local authorities. If MPs wish to intervene in such issues, they should raise them with the local authority. To pursue an issue with the minister is to undermine the authority of a local council exercising powers that Parliament has given it and it has been elected to carry out
l meetings between the House of Commons and local government. While ministers can meet representatives of local government in partnership meetings, there is a need for meetings between representatives of the House of Commons, possibly the chairs of select committees, and representatives of local government. They could meet as a forum for elected representatives from the national and local levels to discuss concerns each thinks requires action. Such a forum would be a major change for the House of Commons and local government, and it would strengthen both in relation to the executive. 
l a local government Bill. Local government could be given the right to present each year a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, with adequate parliamentary time for consideration. It would give local government direct access to parliament, and an opportunity to bring forward legislative proposals for local government as a whole, thus creating a route for statutory initiatives from local government, in addition to the provisions for private Bills promoted by individual local authorities.
Our proposals would change not merely local government’s relationship to parliament, but parliament itself.
As the House of Commons considers the report by Tony Wright’s Commons reform committee, it should go further to strengthen the House of Commons’ role in representative democracy, by linking it more closely to local government with its parallel role in sustaining representative democracy.
George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV