Title

On December 12 2007 the Government and the LGA signed the concordat on central-local government relationships, as promised in the White Paper on the Governance of Britain.It seems to have disappeared without trace. Local authorities rarely refer to it, while central government has paid it scant attention. In a single week the centre told local authorities both to close undersubscribed schools and to protect village schools; and both to stop variations in social care for the elderly by increasing expenditure, and to curb their expenditure or suffer lower grant increases and capping. Despite the concordat, inconsistent central government messages continue to flow. The reason lies in the weakness of the concordat. It needs reassessment and then statutory force to ensure it makes an impact on both central and local government. The concordat should have:- recognised the constitutional position of local government, indeed that local government was part of our constitution, requiring care and respect befitting a basic institution of our system of government. This point was not explicitly stated in the concordat. It did, however, reaffirm that ‘the Government is committed to constitutional reform' and will work with the LGA to ensure the position of local government is reflected in the development of proposals. To that extent the concordat is an interim statement, and the LGA should press for a full recognition of the position of local government in the constitution. contained a clear statement that the primary role of local authorities is the government of local communities, enabling their well-being. The concordat contains statements of such a role for local government, but it is not set out as the primary role that should determine its rights and responsibilities. Rather the concordat emphasises the specific services delivered by local authorities, not shaping of the development of the locality. There is little recognition that the primary role will both respond to and create diversity between different areas, and that such diversity is welcomed as an expression of local initiative and innovation. The concordat does not go far enough in asserting the rights and responsibilities necessary to sustain this primary role. There is no indication that central requirements should normally be set out in primary legislation, limiting detailed interventions that arise from over-prescription and over-regulation. There is no recognition of the importance of the quasi-legislative powers to set by-laws in the interest of the local community, free from central control. The suggestion in the concordat of the need for flexibility of funding is ambiguous, avoiding such fundamental issues as the balance of funding and the freedom of local authorities to determine their own expenditure and level of local taxes. expressed a commitment to give local authorities powers to ensure quangos and appointed boards at local level should be accountable to local people through local authorities for their contribution to the government of the area. Paragraph 16 of the concordat does recognise the need to increase local accountability for key public services, and Sir Simon Milton, the chairman of the LGA, has suggested how this need could be met, proposing that local authorities have powers to remove key officials in the health and police services. We hope the concordat will lead to a discussion of this and other approaches, including giving local authorities the role of commissioning such services. clarified that the primary accountability of local authorities is to their electorate. The concordat says too little about accountability, and yet this issue needs clarification to avoid the danger that local authorities are seen as accountable to central government rather than their electorates. Local authorities have to act within the law, the scope of which has been greatly extended by the powers of well-being, but they are accountable to their electors for their actions. For such accountability to be exercised, the rights and responsibilities of local authorities should be clear, yet at certain points the concordat emphasises (paragraph 4 in particular) joint responsibilities and partnerships. Shared responsibilities can be shared irresponsibility as each partner blames the other, an all too common experience in central-local relations. Although we welcome the presumption that powers are best exercised at the lowest effective and practical level, it is still necessary to clarify how that level will be decided. A clearer division of responsibilities should be set out. We welcome the promise that the Government and the LGA will monitor the concordat, but an independent commission or select committee of both Houses of Parliament should also monitor it. The concordat suggests that monitoring could lead to revisions, and there is need for further work to create a firm framework for central-local relations as is appropriate for a constitutional relationship. But monitoring by an independent body should have as its main role establishing whether the concordat is being carried out in practice. The concordat recognises that changes are required in the behaviour and practice of central government in the same way as change is required of local government and other local bodies. The change required of other local bodies is to recognise their accountability to local people. The change required of local government is to regain confidence in showing initiative and innovation in community leadership. The change required from central government is that its departments should accept that the concordat requires they exercise restraint in prescription and regulation. The Government must have an overview of central-local relations to ensure the concordat is accepted in the deep recesses of departments. So far it has been ignored. We welcome the concordat as the first stage on the road to a final document that will provide a firm basis for the development of central-local relations to meet the needs of society in the twenty-first century. A second stage is urgently needed. George Jones is emeritus professor of government at the LSE, and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV

Title

WHITEHALL

So just what has the concordat achieved?

By George Jones, John Stewart | 05 March 2008

Popular articles by John Stewart

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING

Popular articles by John Stewart