The UK’s system of government is overcentralised, remote and very confusing

It is a Frankenstein’s monster. Ask yourself if you truly understand it – how local taxes are raised and shared out among other councils, what power your mayor has, whether you have a unitary system or whether you are under a county and district councils.

If so, who does what? Streetlights, main roads, health, education, car parks, parks, bins, police? If there’s a problem, who do you go to?

And then there are the devolved nations – how are they funded and what control do they have?

Central government has its fingers in all their pies and, ultimately can give – and take back – power.

It can order local councils to do its bidding, without funding them. Covid was a good example with central government giving orders and local councils having to find the money and a method to carry out their instructions.

Councils had to make the orders from on high work locally, even if those instructions didn’t make sense for the local communities and their specific needs.

This lack of local responsibility and control, along with the confusion of local and regional government systems across the UK, baffles many of us, erodes trust in local government and diminishes our democracy.

The size of some local authorities and the overbearing control imposed on them by central government, means councils cannot easily offer the right responses to the unique problems within their communities.

Local governments become little more than goffers for Westminster, while having to take responsibilities for actions imposed on them by central government bosses.

There is a better way.

We believe power should be handed back to local councils so that decisions are taken closest to where they will have their effect.

Real power to the people, with local councils doing what you tell them to do. You decide – they deliver.

And if they don’t you vote them out. It’s direct democracy.

Take back control - READ our report on Decentralisation

Leave our Universities Alone.

At their best, British universities drive innovation, push scientific and human discovery forward, forge rounded  graduates and generally make the world a better place.

They do not do this by conforming to an identikit model, doing the same as their neighbours. Rather each has its own flavour, its own personality, its own strengths. 

In a plural democracy, the clash of intellectual ideas, the race to land new scientific discoveries to discover better medicines, and develop better ideas is fundamental to higher education institutions.

To thrive, local difference must be lauded, not stifled. 

However, in a move that is likely to hobble healthy individualism,  the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is considering designating our universities as ‘public bodies’.

This prosaic nomenclature may sound dull and trivial. Yet, if they become public bodies it will mean they cannot raise loans in the private sector and all loans will be on the government’s books. 

Their borrowing – which universities currently secure at their own risk to spend as they wish, to boost their unique offers to students, researchers, the UK and the world, will be controlled by government.

This is because university debt will be piled onto the debt owed by the government. Inevitably, this will mean the government will want to approve each debt, which logically means approving the project on which the loan will be spent. 

In a briefing to MPs, Universities UK sums it up thus: “The reclassification of universities as public bodies would remove their autonomy over borrowing and investment decisions, handing responsibility to the Department for Education (DfE) and the Treasury. 

“Universities would therefore be unable to access commercial lending and be subject to increasing direct controls from government on a whole host of other areas, greatly impacting their institutional autonomy.”

How Keele, Kent or Kingston borrow money – and spend it – is not a matter for a civil servant in Whitehall.

LibDems push on with decentralisation at conference

Hats off to the Lib Dems who are pushing on with their decentralisation agenda at their conference in Bournemouth this week.

Among their top speakers who will be discussing Setting our cities free: London’s role in the national devolution agenda  is London Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon who spoke eloquently and passionately to the Effective Governance Forum about decentralisation and the need for local councils to have far greater financial autonomy.

In her blog she said: “At present, virtually all taxation in the UK is determined by central government.  Only council tax (and in England from April 2013, a proportion of business rates) can be seen as local taxation – and even this is subject to cumbersome controls, including referendum rules set by central Government.  When you compare this internationally, you realise the power that Whitehall holds.”

Greater local control means councils can offer costed programmes to their communities that are designed exclusively for those communities and their local needs.

If the community doesn’t like them, it can reject them at the ballot box.

At the moment, central government controls so much of what local council do, it is hard to know what is a local and what is a national policy.

Decentralisation is much more democratic.

Also speaking alongside Caroline is:

·      @Gareth_Roberts_  Vice Chair of London Councils and Leader of the London Borough of Richmond (Chair)

·      @AkashPaun, Programme Director – Devolution, Institute for Government

·      Sonika Sidhu, Principal Policy Adviser, Local Government Association

·      @cllrbridget Smith, Leader, South Cambridgeshire District Council

Read Caroline’s original blog post for us: HERE

Why Rory Stewart is right about Westminster…

Many MPs and ministers first learned their political craft in town halls, taking decisions that affected local people.

To the aspiring prime minister (don’t they all want to be PM?) who wants to make a difference and change the world for the better - being a councillor in a small ward in Oxdown on Sea, being quoted in the Oxdown Gazette for a stunning intervention in a debate on town-centre signage maybe loses its fizz after a couple of electoral cycles.

So, to Westminster, it is – with a glad heart, high aspirations, and a ministerial office surely just a couple of sycophantic PMQs away. 

Sadly, many discover there is no real power in being an MP. Even though national government puts its fingers in every pie, it does so ham-fistedly.

This is because national politicians don’t know what is needed locally; they have no sense of the unique and diverse challenges of Portsmouth, Plymouth and Portishead – nor the unique solutions.

Not like local politicians do.

Perhaps that’s why some sensible national politicians have gone the other way,  leaving Westminster to try to exercise real power in the towns, cities and regions.

These include Ken Livingstone, Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin – to name four random, former Labour MPs who have become city mayors. Two were even Cabinet ministers. 

As former Tory MP and minister Rory Stewart told the FT newspaper: “I’m now almost ready to imagine coming back into politics if I was to run as a mayor or something. I was with [West Midlands mayor] Andy Street and [Greater Manchester mayor] Andy Burnham yesterday, and I’m very jealous. Andy Burnham’s analysis of parliament is almost identical to mine. He’s just like, ‘what a terrible place, I was becoming the most awful human being and now in Manchester I can be myself and do stuff.’”

The problem is that Westminster has too tight a grip on local mayors and local councils. It is too restrictive. Too controlling. Bullying even. 

It gives cash – levelling up funds, along with orders and demands.

Westminster giveth and Westminster taketh away. 

It tells local councils how much money it can raise, how it can spend it and gives orders about pretty much every area of policy.

It’s time to let local politicians take control, to tackle the problems on their streets and in their towns and villages. It’s time for real decentralisation.

Rory Stewart’s book Politics on the Edge has just been published.

Download our paper on Decentralisation.

Should police follow up every local theft?

Home secretary, SuellaBraverman, responsible for policing in the UK, has said officers must investigate every theft to catch more offenders. 

She said it was "completely unacceptable" that criminals are often "effectively free to break certain laws".

It feels obvious. If you have your mobile phone stolen, or your shed is broken into, you want an investigation, your stuff back and the criminals caught and punished.

I know when it happened to me, that's what I wanted. 

But a diktat from Whitehall blasted out to the village bobby on a bike in rural Northumberland, in the throbbing metropolises of Manchester and Birmingham, the seaside towns of Southend and Whitstable and the leafy suburbs of Surbiton is well wide of the mark. 

It is a soundbite relying on pressing an obvious hot button – these police officers are clearly doing a Gilian Kegan sitting on their backsides doing nothing. But now they will because the Home Secretary has called them out.

There are two problems. The first is a lack of resource. The police can't follow up every crime. They don't have enough officers or money.

The second, is more subtle. Different areas - the seaside town, the rural village and the  big city centres, have different local challenges. Crime is different in each of them. And local communities have different priorities according to their locations and demographics. One size doesn't fit all.

It is not for the home secretary to tell local communities what they want and what their police should do. It is for those communities to decide.

The answer is decentralisation. Give the power back to local people and their councils to decide how the police should be funded and what they should.

ULEZ: Let the crofters decide

The brouhaha over ULEZ (the Ultra Low Emission Zone in London which will mean drivers of highly polluting cars will need to pay a charge when they enter the capital) has provoked some to say that decentralisation has failed.

One Telegraph columnist in particular has argued that: ULEZ has created a serious democratic deficit. "More than one million motorists living outside London may face the daily £12.50 charge if they enter the city. Many will work or shop regularly in London, but live outside its borders. Accordingly, they have no way of holding the mayor to account .... What do the champions of devolution have to say to that?"

The answer is simple. This is nonsense.

Let us apply an ice bucket of logic to this enflamed argument. The reductio ad absurdum of this implicit assertion is that if you didn't vote for something you ought not have to accede to the duties imposed by that vote. It means that I can say: 'I live in Milton Keynes so nothing that the mayors of West Midlands/Manchester/West Yorkshire have enacted should apply to me when I visit  because I can't vote it down.'

Really?

So when I cross my parish council boundary, or wander into the next borough, or county or head into Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland or head off overseas, I ought to be exempt from every law and bylaw? I should only live by the laws that I voted for? 

The logic of this is we should have a one-world government whereby we can all vote on everything. Of course our voices will be irrelevant and swamped by the billions of voters deciding issues on a global basis. But it will somehow be 'more democratic'. 

This is silly. 

Here in my English urban borough I know better what is relevant to me than I know what a crofter in the Outer Hebrides might need. Yet, according to the logic of 'only do what I can vote for' I should get to tell that crofter what's what. And that crofter ought to be able to tell me whether I can have ULEZ or not. 

Logically it is less democratic to impose a nation's will on a city or a borough and more democratic for a city or a borough to forge its own destiny.  Irrespective of what one thinks of ULEZ, voting locally on local issues is the antidote to the democratic deficit. 

The UK’s system of government is run by the politicians in Westminster and Whitehall

They are remote and unresponsive to the needs of the people of Widnes, Winchester and Wythenshawe.

It is a confusing Frankenstein’s monster.

The devolved nations have far fewer responsibilities and financial control than our European competitors. England, of course, has no devolved parliament at all.

This lack of local responsibility and control, along with the confused and irrational plethora of local and regional government models across the UK baffles the public, erodes trust in, and limits engagement with, local government resulting in a democratic deficit.

The size of some local authorities and the overbearing control imposed on them by central government, means councils cannot easily offer bespoke responses to the unique problems within their communities. There is little room for manoeuvre.

Local governments become little more crown agents for Ministers in Whitehall, with little wriggle room to apply local solutions to local issues.

We propose a structure for the governance for the United Kingdom, where power is devolved, through subsidiarity, to the lowest possible level and so that decisions are taken closest to where they will have their effect.

Take back control - READ our report on Decentralisation

Give back control of local affairs to the people

Successive governments have increasingly taken control of the most Important aspects that affect people’s daily lives – policing, education, health, potholes.

Local councillors, who have the greatest knowledge of the needs of their communities, have little power over their decisions.

The voters know how powerless their local council is.

This, in part, explains why the turnout at the last local elections was only 35% – compared with 69% at the last general election.

Local elections feel pointless.

To regain the trust of the people, politicians must return control to the people through their local councils.

Local people, through their councils, must be responsible for the prosperity and wellbeing of their communities.

Councils must have full control of their services and how and where their people’s money is spent.

Some areas are poorer than others. So there should an Equalisation Fund to make sure all councils have the resources to provide good services.

Councils must be much smaller so that they are close to the people – and so local people can identify with them as ‘my local council’. This will help to rebuild a feeling of community.

And this will help ministers in Westminster because they will be free to focus on the many serious challenges that face the country.

Public services will improve with the focus of thousands of councillors, instead of a handful of overworked Ministers.

Community will be strengthened. Voters will re-engage with local politics when they feel there is local control and they can hold their elected politicians accountable.

Take back control - READ our report on Decentralisation

PRESS RELEASE: Civil Service dismisses ‘negligible’ one in ten thousand for poor performance.

• Civil Servants were ten times more likely to die in post than to be dismissed for poor performance in 11 departments to reveal the data.

• New data reveals just eight in ten thousand were placed on performance review, in the previous 12 months.

• Comparisons are difficult but the private sector is highly likely to have a much higher dismissal rate.

 Out of 310,320 Civil Servants, just 248 were under performance review and as few as 24 were dismissed for poor performance over a year, the Effective Governance Forum (EGF) has revealed.

This means just 0.08% of staff are on performance review and "an almost negligible" number (0.01%) lose their job for this reason, in the departments that responded to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

In the 11 departments that replied, which employ almost 60% of the total Civil Service headcount, managers had 245-248 workers on performance review, and dismissed between 24 and 44 for poor performance.

Almost ten times this number (420 workers) “died in service” across those same 11 departments in the year to March 2023, according to the official Civil Service Statistical Bulletin 2023.

SOURCES: * EGF analysis of FOI replies (for the year ending July 2023). / ** Civil Service Statistical Bulletin 2023 (as at March 2023) / *** Civil Service sickness absence report (for the year ending March 2022)

The overall dismissal rate in all departments (including reasons other than poor performance) is at least six times lower than estimates for the UK as a whole, including the private sector. 

According to the analysis, some departments were more likely to dismiss staff for poor performance than others, with some of the biggest departments by headcount, more reluctant to act. The Department for Work and Pensions, for example, employs 87,770 and dismissed fewer than five.

HMRC has a negligible dismissal rate for poor performance (0.0009%) and employs 72,380. In other words, just seven people out of 72,380 were dismissed for poor performance at HMRC. It also has a relatively high sickness rate, of 8.1 average working days lost a year (absences are widely considered an important performance indicator.)

The Ministry of Justice—the largest department to respond, with 92,260 staff—has a dismissal rate for poor performance of just 0.008%, a relatively low number on performance review (just 18), and enjoys the highest sickness rate, at 12.1. 

The smallest department to respond, DCMS, has the highest dismissal rate for poor performance (0.2%), has 21 on performance review, and the lowest sickness rate, at 3.5 days lost per year.

Six departments (The Home Office, DEFRA, FCO, MOD, DESNZ, and DSIT) declined to respond to the FOI, citing the cost or the fact they are newly formed.

Total Civil Service employment was 520,560, according to official figures published in March 2023, with 488,400 employed on a full-term basis. 

Between 2016 and 2023, the number of officials employed by Whitehall departments grew by more than 100,000 and the civil service salary bill has increased by 60 per cent from £9.7 billion to £15.5 billion.

In total, 2,356 people were dismissed (for reasons in addition to poor performance) from the Civil Service in the year to March 2023, giving it a total dismissal rate 0.45%, according to the Civil Service Statistical Bulletin 2023. In total, 620 died in service across all departments over the same period.

Comparisons are difficult but the private sector is highly likely to have a much higher dismissal rate.

The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) has estimated the average dismissal (or involuntary separation) rate for the UK, including the private sector, to be between 3% and 4% (between 30 and 40 per thousand) in past years—orders of magnitude (more than six times) higher than in the Civil Service.

There are no such estimates for 2022/2023 and accurate data on job separations for the wider economy is not available. However, the UK was judged by the OECD in 2022 and 2023 to be towards the liberal of the spectrum when comparing the strictness of regulation of dismissals, meaning our dismissal rate is likely to relative high within the 38-member group.

Patrick Barbour, the EGF’s founder, said: “Effective management depends on its ability to reward good performance and penalise poor performance. Our analysis is clear: The UK’s system of governance prevents this from happening.

“This is a major cause of low productivity in the public sector, which has seen the fastest growth in the workforce in half a century. Our system of government is broken and needs radical reform.”

Tim Knox, Editor of the EGF, added: “Many have felt for some time that a job in the civil service can be pretty cushy. Despite the many examples of government breakdown, these data show that hardly anyone ever gets sacked for poor performance.

“This can only be a failure of management – and the sooner this is recognised and acted upon, the better. To do nothing about it would be unfair on taxpayers, unfair on those Civil Servants who do actually work hard, and unsustainable.”

ABOUT

• EGF is a cross-party campaign group calling for the effective management of government and lasting decentralisation. (www.egforum.org.uk)

• EGF’s recent report, The Effective Management of Government, advocates for two key structural reforms: 1) The Minister should be chair of the department and a new role of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) should be created to manage the department, and 2) Departments should become separate units so the CEO can be held accountable, departmental knowledge retained and stability of ethos and long-term vision established.

• The EGF’s second report, Effective Decentralisation of UK Government, calls for radical decentralisation of power in the UK.

• The reports’ authors are Patrick Barbour, a businessman and think tank founder, and Tim Knox, a former Director of the Centre for Policy Studies and author. 

• The authors are available for comment and/or interview. Please contact Liam Deacon on 07592794351 / liam.deacon@pagefield.co.uk.

Let councils raise taxes

Central government has consistently cut council budgets over the past decades. At the same time, as the cost of living crisis continues, demands for local government services have been rising.

The latest research by the BBC finds that across the country local councils face a £5bn black hole. 

This is hard to fill because central government stops local councils from raising council tax by more than a few percentage points each year. 

Under the current system the only way round this is for councils to cut services – closing libraries, leisure centres and by putting up prices of parking and the like. 

This is all a result of central government policy. Local councils have little choice.

The solution is for central government to give up its control of local councils and services as Caroline Pidgeon, Liberal Democrat London Assembly Leader discussed with us in a recent interview.

Local councils should be able to raise taxes for local services as they see fit, offering a shopping list of services and their costs. Local voters can then decide at the ballot box what they want and if they want to pay the costs.

Find out more in our report on Decentralisation: https://bit.ly/3XRrXfW

Poor communities lose out on central government funding

 A heavy weight think tank has concluded that funding of public services in England is skewed against poor areas.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) argues that levelling up funding plans are being hampered by a funding system that is “not fit for purpose” and deprives the poorest areas of the financial support to match their needs.

The IFS said that the method for allocating money to pay for public services is out of date, based on inadequate data and skewed in favour of the better-off south-east.

Calling for urgent reform, the think tank said the funding system was doing a “poor job” in ensuring money was being spent in the parts of England where it was most needed.

The IFS said the most deprived 20% of areas were getting a smaller share of local government and police funding than they were estimated to need, while the least deprived 20% were receiving a bigger portion than their needs required.

Plymouth City Council leader Tudor Evans told the EGF that central government pays little attention to communities far from London while our insider columnist the Reluctant Civil Servant has argued that central government makes local councils fight for bits of central government funding, wasting time, money and effort.

Sifting through competing bids – making communities dance for government handouts – also wastes central government time. And what do Whitehall civil servants and minister know about the specific needs of Plymothians, or Geordies?

The solution is simple. Decentralise power to the communities who know their own problems – and the solutions to them and give them the means to raise their own money to fund those solutions.

Central government needs to get out of the way of local communities and concentrate on the issues that only it can deal with ­ - defence, international trade and development. Leave the rest to the real experts on the ground.

Want to find out more? Download our report on Decentralisation HERE.

An impossible day in the life of a minister

A Secretary of State walks into her office on a Monday morning.

All weekend she’s been wading through red boxes, reading, annotating and signing off hundreds of pages of verbiage.

Overnight she has become an unwilling expert on zero-emission bus funding in Rainham, a potential train station reopening in Cullompton and something about ‘state-of-the-art community tennis courts’ in… she forgets where.

Later today, she is meeting Cabinet colleagues to discuss rising interest rates and spiralling inflation, the cost-of-living crisis, the crashing pound, the Northern Ireland protocol and a raging war in Europe that threatens to go nuclear.

But she’s not briefed. She’s not had time. Her brain is super-saturated by mini-roundabouts and planning applications.

On the upside, though, the community tennis courts consultation is going ahead.

Centralisation forces Secretaries of State to make hundreds of tactical decisions every week - decisions which should be taken on the ground, where they will have effect.

How does a minister in central London know anything about the need for 6G AstroTurf tennis court in Newton Aycliffe?

Yet, it seems, her job is to sweat the small stuff.

Given the concentration of power in Whitehall, it cannot be surprising that ministers do not have the time or mental energy to scrutinise and adjudicate upon the thousands of decisions that come their way.

Is the project worthwhile? Is it funding right?  Is it being managed effectively? How would they know and why should they know?

Surely there are more qualified people on the ground who know better what is – and what isn’t – needed? People who are directly responsible to their local communities, the councillors?

We believe that power must shift back to people and their representatives in their local communities.

Leave national decisions to national ministers and decentralise authority back to the people who know best.

Take back control - READ our report on Decentralisation

Canary Wharves in the Coal Mines: How Investment Zones can improve productivity outside of London

By Gideon Salutin

Researcher, Social Market Foundation

The government’s plans for investment zones have a lot of potential, promising to catalyse business innovation, improve the translation of research and establishing a framework for combined authorities to gain more control over their local economy. [i] However, Jeremy Hunt’s claims that this will stimulate private sector growth to create “mini Canary Wharves” are unrealistic.[ii] While the principle of using up-front government spending to encourage private investment in post-industrial areas is a good one, the impact of the initiative will be limited in absence of additional funding and bold action on fiscal devolution.

The Spring Budget reintroduced the concept of investment zones, a policy that looked to have been axed when Liz Truss left office. Hunt’s plans involve funding to develop an initial eight zones across England, and another four in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The central government will allocate up to £80 million over five years to each combined authority granted a zone, with amounts varying based on the individual plans offered by local leaders. The money will fund new capital and resource spending and/or compensate for income lost from tax relief.[iii] Although not explicitly referenced, the funds work towards levelling up post-industrial towns which over recent decades have lost businesses to London.

On their face, investment zones look like a substantial step towards devolution. Offering combined authorities the chance to bid for funding, allocated in line with their proposals to attract private investment, would seem to empower them. Yet the extent to which such schemes are likely to support private sector growth is limited by the meagre funds on offer. To compensate, new powers to raise revenue should be granted to local authorities through fiscal devolution.

£35 million will be available for authorities to spend on resources and capital that help develop each cluster - for instance, by providing grants, recruit technical teams and city planners, or spending on local infrastructure. The other £45 million is being offered by the central government to compensate for money lost from tax reliefs, such as exemption from stamp duty, up to 100% relief from business rates on newly occupied premises, up to 100% first-year capital allowance, increased structures and buildings allowances, and relief on employer tax contributions for national insurance. [iv] Alternatively combined authorities can request to use this remaining pot on additional spending. To incentivise effective use of the funds, each authority could receive 100% of the business rates growth in their investment zone above an agreed baseline for 25 years.

If the Government wants to create more Canary Wharves, it needs to put more money up. On average, the £16 million combined authorities will receive each year  –if they get maximum benefit from the scheme–  will increase their budgets 7.4%.[v] Canary Wharf, in contrast, required huge upfront investments, among them a £3.5 billion extension of the Jubilee line.[vi] This was worth over ten times the surrounding Tower Hamlets’ budget, which totalled just £307 million when the work was first proposed in 1988.[vii] The cost of the extension was therefore overwhelmingly covered by the central government.[viii]

Figure 1: Mayoral combined authorities’ total expenditure in 2021/22 fiscal year compared to amount offered by investment zones plan

Source: Treasury and respective council budgets 2021/22 fiscal year. Note, the proposed East Midlands MCA has been excluded from analysis as it currently lacks a unified budget

Figure 2: Maximum investment zone funding as a percentage of total expenditure in 2021/22

 Source: Treasury and respective council budgets 2021/22 fiscal year. Note, the proposed East Midlands MCA has been excluded from analysis as it currently lacks a unified budget

Investment zones in the UK’s major cities have the potential to reduce regional inequalities and improve productivity. A stronger and richer metropole could provide secondary benefits for its surrounding rural and suburban areas. The proposed policy rightfully recognizes how transport investment and skills building are essential facets of any credible plan to improve productivity in investment zones, and so establishes a useful framework to provide those goods. By transferring funds to local councils, and incentivizing partnerships between authorities, the market, and researchers, the central government has provided a realistic way to develop new business cores.

However, the funding on offer is negligible compared to what is necessary according to historical experience. The £80 million cap is too little, and limiting incentives to five years is inadequate for most private businesses looking for long-term benefits. The programme therefore appears less likely to revolutionise local economies and more likely to act as an additional, if minor, funding stream to complement existing projects. The money is dwarfed by pre-existing financial resources made available to the same authorities last year.[ix] At worst, tax breaks will benefit businesses but fail to spark long term investments in the area, leaving the Exchequer to appear penny-wise and pound-foolish.

To properly invest in investment zones, government at some level must provide more funding over a longer term. Right now 95% of money raised in the UK goes to the central government, leaving little for local authorities.[x] By allowing a portion of locally raised VAT, income tax, and corporation tax to be kept by local authorities, government can provide them with a reliable funding stream to fund ambitious projects.[xi] Alternatively, a new fund could be established and distributed by the central government for these projects, but the money available will need to be far greater than £16 million per annum.

The investment zone plan has sound logic. More funding and more authority needs to be provided to combined authorities for them to offer a viable alternative to invest outside of London. But experience shows that economic zones designed by governments are only successful when local investment is sufficient and when local authorities have the power to coordinate them.

Download the EGF report on Decentralisation HERE

[i] HM Treasury and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, “Investment Zones Policy Offer,” March 15, 2023, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1142995/Investment_Zone_Policy_Prospectus.pdf.

[ii] Hannah Finch, “Key Points from Jeremy Hunt’s Speech from ‘mini Canary Wharfs’ to Inflation,” Business Live, January 27, 2023, https://www.business-live.co.uk/enterprise/key-points-jeremy-hunts-speech-26086622.

[iii] HM Treasury and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, “Investment Zones Policy Offer,” March 15, 2023, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1142995/Investment_Zone_Policy_Prospectus.pdf

[iv] HM Treasury and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, “Investment Zones Policy Offer,” March 15, 2023, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1142995/Investment_Zone_Policy_Prospectus.pdf

[v] Based on the 2021/22 budgets of seven of the eight combined authorities invited to submit proposals for investment zones. The proposed East Midlands MCA was not included as it is not yet a combined authority and has therefore not submitted a combined budget.

[vi] For details on the full cost of the Jubilee Line, see James Meek, review of Crocodile’s Breath, by Christian Wolmar, London Review of Books, May 5, 2005, https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v27/n09/james-meek/crocodile-s-breath

[vii] London Borough of Tower Hamlets, “Annual Report 1987/88”, 1988.

[viii] For details on payment and responsibility, see “Jubilee Line Extension” (House of Commons, May 18, 1992), https://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1992/may/18/jubilee-line-extension#S6CV0208P0_19920518_HOC_364.

[ix] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, “Secretary of State’s Annual Report on Devolution 2021 to 2022,” March 30, 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-report-on-devolution-2021-to-2022/secretary-of-states-annual-report-on-devolution-2021-to-2022.

[x] “Fiscal Devolution: Why We Need It and How to Make It Work,” New Local (blog), April 26, 2023, https://www.newlocal.org.uk/publications/fiscal-devo/.

[xi] Ibid.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: why local councils, not the Prime Minister, should decide

By Tim Knox

Editor EGF

Today, it has been announced that the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has ordered a review of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in England.

This blog is not concerned with whether LTNs are a good idea or not. They may be. Or they may not be. This blog is only concerned with who should decide whether they are set up in any particular locality. Should it be the Prime Minister? Perhaps not, as he does have a few other things to worry about. Should it be the Secretary of State for Transport? Well, he too has quite a bit to keep an eye on from HS2 to the Integrated Rail Plan to delivery on the National Infrastructure Strategy, not to mention dealing with industrial action on the railways and at the airports.

Or should it be the people who live within any actual or proposed LTN? Aren’t they best placed to judge whether any particular scheme is working or not? Can’t they hold their local politicians accountable for how a local LTN is working? Won’t local politicians be so much more likely to respect the wishes of their electorate?

And once it is clear that local decisions are taken best by local councils, then people will know who to blame if something is done which they do not approve of – or who to praise when they get it right. That would be localisation in action. And think how much better a system this would be then the current mess where no one really knows who is responsible for the LTNs, let alone how the funding and monitoring of them works. Westminster? Their local MP? Whitehall? The Council? Some combination of all of them?

There may just be one area where central government can play a useful role: in providing clear reporting structures for how new initiatives such as LTNs can be measured; for as long as the data is comparable between local areas, then people can tell what works. And make their judgement accordingly.

So central politicians should surrender control of all these areas of popular concern and delegate it, in perpetuity, to those who are best able to decide what works best for them: local politicians and local electorates.

See our report, the Effective Decentralisation of Government for more information.

Empowering Local Authorities in Scotland

By Deena Tissera

Councillor Aberdeen, Scotland

Introduction

Decentralisation is a concept that emphasises the transfer of power, decision-making authority, and resources from a central authority to regional or local authorities. In the context of Scotland, decentralisation from Westminster, as well as within the Scottish Parliament, can have numerous benefits for local authorities. By granting greater autonomy and devolving powers to local governments, Scotland can enhance democratic representation, foster regional development, and address the unique needs and aspirations of its diverse communities. In this blog, we will explore some key advantages of decentralisation and how they can positively impact local authorities in Scotland.

Enhanced Democratic Representation

Decentralisation offers an opportunity to strengthen democratic governance at the local level. By shifting power from a central authority to local authorities, citizens can experience a more direct and participatory democracy. Decentralised decision-making enables local communities to have a greater say in matters that directly affect them, encouraging active citizen engagement and promoting transparency and accountability.

In Scotland, the decentralisation process goes beyond empowering local authorities alone. The establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 marked a significant step towards devolution of power. The Scottish people have their own representatives in the Scottish Parliament and are not solely reliant on Westminster for governance. This dual-parliament system recognises Scotland's distinctiveness and provides the Scottish people with more direct representation and influence over decisions affecting their lives.

Tailored Policies and Effective Service Delivery

Scotland is a diverse country with distinct regions, each possessing unique characteristics and challenges. Decentralisation empowers local authorities and the Scottish Parliament to develop and implement policies that are tailored to the specific requirements of their communities. This flexibility enables them to respond more effectively to local needs and priorities, whether in areas such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, or economic development.

Local authorities, being closer to the ground, have a better understanding of their communities and can provide targeted solutions to address local issues. They can work collaboratively with local stakeholders, including businesses, community organisations, and residents, to design policies that reflect local aspirations and foster sustainable development. The Scottish Parliament, on the other hand, can focus on broader national policies while taking into account the regional nuances and perspectives brought forward by local authorities.

Regional Development and Economic Growth 

Decentralisation can play a crucial role in promoting regional development and economic growth. By devolving powers to local authorities and recognising the unique challenges and opportunities of different regions, Scotland can tap into the untapped potential of its diverse areas. Local authorities, armed with decision-making authority, can prioritise region-specific development strategies and investments that can drive economic prosperity.

The Scottish Parliament, in collaboration with local authorities, can create an environment that supports regional industries, attracts investments, and fosters innovation. By nurturing local businesses, harnessing regional resources sustainably, and providing targeted support, Scotland can promote balanced economic growth and reduce regional disparities. Decentralisation empowers local authorities to be key drivers of regional development, capitalising on their knowledge of local economies and the needs of their communities.

Strengthening Community Engagement

 Local authorities and the Scottish Parliament are at the forefront of community engagement and development. Decentralisation empowers them to establish stronger connections with their communities, enabling more meaningful and participatory decision-making processes.

Through enhanced engagement, local authorities and the Scottish Parliament can tap into the wealth of local knowledge, expertise, and ideas that exist within their communities.

Empowering local decision-makers encourages community ownership, active participation, and civic pride. It fosters a sense of belonging and encourages residents to take an active role in shaping the future of their communities. The dual-parliament system in Scotland ensures that decisions are made closer to the people, promoting trust, accountability, and participation at both the local and national levels.

Conclusion

The decentralisation of power from Westminster to local authorities, as well as within the Scottish Parliament, can bring about a range of benefits for Scotland. By enhancing democratic representation, enabling tailored policies and effective service delivery, promoting regional development, and strengthening community engagement, Scotland can build a more inclusive, prosperous, and resilient society.

Scotland's dual-parliament system, with the Scottish Parliament and local authorities working hand in hand, recognises the diverse needs and aspirations of different regions within the country. It allows for decision-making that is closer to the people, fostering trust, accountability, and participation. By recognising Scotland's distinctiveness and empowering local decision-makers, Scotland can shape its own future while also fostering cooperation and collaboration with the wider UK.

Download the EGF report on Decentralisation HERE

Momentum building for reform at top of civil service

In a significant development, The Times has just called for reform of the Senior Civil Service, adding its powerful voice to the growing realisation that the problems at the top of government departments are deep. It has rightly identified that the senior civil service has grown too large, that it uses a lot of resources while delivering very little, and crucially, as a result, that it is too hard for ministers to implement their policies. It goes on to argue that the Civil Service must now "concentrate on attracting mission-driven talent" and insists "recruits should be a mix of private and public sector leaders."

The Times is right. And, as detailed in our recent paper, The Effective Management of Government, these problems would all be addressed with modern, professional management practices used in all other walks of life. Our proposals for departmental Chief Executives Officers (CEOs) on fixed-term contracts would align with the recognition that they need to be held accountable for their performance. For as The Times points out, ministers can't "micromanage their vast, temporary fiefdoms," and need support from staff with management experience—something many of them lack.

In a leader column, @thetimes has called for a "shake up" of the Senior Civil Service and departmental management.

They diagnose the very same problems, holding back the government and the UK, as our recent report.

📰 Read the article here 👉 https://t.co/ptLjBbwREz pic.twitter.com/mMbAr3B80J

— Effective Governance Forum (@EffectiveGovUK) July 14, 2023

Alongside ministers, The Times names permanent secretaries, directors-general, directors, and deputy directors as positions within the Senior Civil Service that are in need of support. CEOs could make all these positions easier and more effective and hopefully eliminate the need for some such jobs altogether.  

The Times article comes shortly after the EGF published its proposals for reforming the Senior Civil Service and just over a month after Chancellor Jeremy Hunt ordered a review of public sector productivity, because of related failings. And it is just weeks after former Home Secretary Sajid Javid spoke about the Civil Service’s lack of institutional memory and skills and began arguing for reform. Others now backing our reforms include many in the Labour Party – Gordon Brown’s recent Report of the Commission on the UK’s Future sits well beside our paper – the Liberal Democrats and some of Westminster's biggest think tanks, including the Institute for Government, and Reform. Lord Maude's Review on Civil Service Governance is expected to make many comparable recommendations.

So it does appear that momentum is building: as our polling has shown, in terms of the reform of public services, most people don’t think it matters who wins the next election. It seems that Westminster and the media are beginning to catch up.

Take back control - says Lib Dem London Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon

By Caroline Pidgeon MBE

Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member

For decades, I have been championing devolution; for communities to take back control over the decisions that affect their lives from the very local allocation of funding to improve an area, to wider service provision and structures.  The beauty of our local government is that it looks different in different areas, to suit local communities’ needs. 

However, no matter what the structure, funding has always been a problem for local services.  Back in 2013, Boris Johnson, as Mayor of London, commissioned Professor Tony Travers to Chair an expert panel called the London Finance Commission, which produced Raising the capital | London City Hall.  This report transformed the debate and voiced the need for London and other cities to have more financial control.

The EU referendum, and Britain now having left the EU, has made the case for devolution and fiscal devolution more urgent.  Whatever Leave voters felt they were voting for, it was not ‘business as usual’.  It was not an endorsement of centralised power, simply removing it from Brussels to Whitehall and job done.  People across the country feel isolated from the democratic process.

The referendum result not only affects the country as a whole but also within our nations, regions and cities.  The uncertainties from Brexit and the pandemic may well be better managed at a local level, with local and regional government able to respond more effectively.

At present, virtually all taxation in the UK is determined by central government.  Only council tax (and in England from April 2013, a proportion of business rates) can be seen as local taxation – and even this is subject to cumbersome controls, including referendum rules set by central Government.  When you compare this internationally, you realise the power that Whitehall holds.

In the light of Brexit, the London Finance Commission published a further report – Devolution: a capital idea.  This called for a new devolution settlement for London, which could apply equally to other city regions.

It cannot be assumed that the current degree of fiscal centralisation within the UK is the only way to do things.  Giving London and other places greater power over their tax base and delivery of public services could be hugely beneficial all round – allowing public services to be reformed and with everyone having an incentive to see their local economy develop and grow.

It makes sense to bring London in line with most other global cities by allowing the capital’s government control over a much wider range of taxes – crucially in exchange for lower levels of government grant.  Other cities could benefit too.

This would enable the city to operate more efficiently, effectively and integrate services, bringing forward infrastructure investment vital for growth at no additional cost to central government.

Modest devolution of this nature to London and other cities would enable Whitehall to concentrate on the bigger global challenges, whilst allowing local areas to be reinvigorated.

Simple ideas such as a modest tourism levy which is already operated in international cities such as New York, Paris and Berlin could be used to promote tourism; a percentage of Londoners’ income tax yield – broadly to match its overall expenditure, as and when further devolution occurs; and for London government to be able to consider other health-related taxes, such as a sugar sales tax and a saturated fat tax, to be devised and fully managed by London government.

And significantly, the full suite of property taxes should be devolved to London’s government. This includes the operation and setting of council tax and business rates and the devolution of stamp duty.

The centralised nature of UK government makes it incredibly hard for real innovation at the local level.  In London, the Mayor and the boroughs need further powers to bring about the required structural change to address the types of inequalities Londoners face, from housing to household income.

Moving to further fiscal and other service devolution would give local and regional government strong incentives to innovate and develop their areas.  It would also help invigorate local democracy.  When so few people vote in local elections, is it any surprise when Whitehall pulls most of the strings?

A radical transformation of local and regional government is needed.  Taking back control, could be the answer, if that control is genuinely local!

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM

Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member

 Download the EGF report on Decentralisation HERE

The Reluctant Civil Servant: The unexpected importance of bin collection

This blog is the first in an occasional series from an anonymous civil servant who has volunteered to cast light onto some of the ways in which UK central government on a practical level is not working.

By The Reluctant Civil Servant

• The insider account of the government’s “Review of Waste Policy” (yes, it really did happen)

• Details how central government allocated £250 million to councils for bin collection through a complex, heavily bureaucratic bidding process

• Surely bin collections should be a local matter? Why can’t councils decide for themselves how to fund and manage the bin collections that their local voters want?

We try. At least, most of us try most of the time. But it is demoralising. The machinery of government is bust. And we see it every day, from the inside.

I am a fairly run-of-the-mill civil servant who has moved around quite a bit between departments over the years. As we all do. I am writing these blogs as I want to give a sense of what it is like to live and work with the problems diagnosed in the Effective Government Forum’s two recent papers - on management in government and decentralisation. And I hope that my other colleagues may follow my footsteps. I write anonymously because I want to retain my job security and pension – valuable perks for everyone in my position.

I will start with an issue that might appear trivial but which encapsulates so many of the problems of how central and local government interact. Bin collection.

People care most about the public services that they actually use and for those in reasonable health and without children, bin collection is a powerful illustration of how government works. 

When it doesn’t work well, people make waves – as happened in this area some years ago.[1] Then, the question of weekly bin collections suddenly shot up the agenda as some councils were raising the possibility of moving to a fortnightly rota. The press campaigned loudly. In response, Ministers wrote to councils to remind them that the public shouldn’t be separately charged for the household collection they’d already paid for.[2] Then, being keen to be seen to be seizing the initiative, and with no discernible sense of irony, they announced that they were conducting a Review of Waste Policy.[3]

It is worth noting in passing that this Review of Waste Policy was itself impossible to cost accurately or even monitor its effectiveness or whether it could be done better. Whitehall does not work like that.

But in any case Whitehall subsequently issued guidance criticising the ten principal excuses used by councils to avoid providing a weekly service.[4] That stick having been applied, they turned to the recyclable carrot of £250m of extra central funding through a Weekly Collection Support Scheme.[5] This in turn involved so-called ‘Barnett Consequentials’ which are the means by which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive credit for additional central government spending in England which they can use for other purposes.[6]

Administering this separate funding stream for bin collection involved at least three government departments and several external stakeholders or boards; a formal Prospectus inviting applications; 130 bids (of which 90 were successful, and with many local authorities bidding serval times).

In other words, in the face of bad publicity about reductions in collection services Whitehall created a complex, costly and centrally managed process backed by the one-off offer of £250m of public money. Surely the more effective and accountable solution is to give councils full responsibility, including financial responsibility, for bin collections in their area; and that local voters would reward or punish any new initiatives at the ballot box as they see fit.

I’m not sure if Cabinet ministers in other advanced democracies issue similar guidance to address the complexities of bin collection. But I doubt it. More worryingly, Whitehall’s pervasive controlling instincts and risk-avoidance are all on display:

• Aspiration vs prescription – central government doesn’t want anyone to experiment or to fail because of the reputational risk to Ministers. But local delivery is distrusted and minimum regulatory standards are therefore often imposed. And Whitehall won’t wish to pay for results by exceeding these minima on a sustainable basis, which means performance will revert to the mean over time once no one is looking.

• Delivering the goods – There’s a low probability that anyone advising the Minister really understands administration of waste management contracts. Whitehall is full of smart and suspicious people – but few of them will have set themselves the objective of mastering the details of bin collection.

• The power of the purse – The main advantages of central government is money and its control over how other institutions may spend their money. Bins may be collected every week from your door – but if Whitehall officials think there’s an advantage in providing supplementary central funding then the sums involved are a rounding error for all involved. If it works, that’s great; if it doesn’t, it’s not their fault. And if you don’t expect your council’s temporary grant funding to last for the full forecast horizon then you won’t be disappointed.

• The blame game – If your bins are rotting on the street who are you likely to blame? Probably your councillor; your MP and Ministers are likely to feel safe. Conversely, if those same people provide a fund for temporary improvements in service standards then there’s a fair chance you’ll hear about it. This is the fundamental asymmetry: Whitehall is going to win over time at the expense of those actually doing the leg-work by collecting your bins. But if they manage to do a better-than - expected job then you won’t ever know.

• And never expect continuity of government. Despite being intended to be assessed over five years, the bin funding scheme only lasted one; the Department which issued the guidance no longer exists and the great eye of Ministerial or public interest has since moved on. Meanwhile, hundreds of local government officials responsible for refuse collection carry on their thankless work.

Inevitably, subsequent legislation will have changed everything again so that the current experts in bin collection may well disagree with my brief historical summary in light of a more recent Resources and Waste Strategy.[7] The Whitehall machine never stops – and it often doesn’t pause to reflect on whether a strategy or policy has succeeded before trying a new one.

And remember that where you read ‘bins’, you can substitute almost anything. Certainly ‘potholes’, which were provided with a £200m fund in the last Budget to assist with urgent repairs in England, with associated Barnett Consequentials.[8] As with bins there was a process, funding allocation and some trumpeting of Government largesse (this being an outcome particularly relevant to the home counties).[9] Maybe it will be repeated; but probably not. These sums are, in the context of central government expenditure, so small that they are rounding errors.

If you’re more ambitious you can substitute education and skills for bin collection; or public health and social care; or transport infrastructure, or really any infrastructure project at all. The idea that local communities should control their own destiny is completely foreign to Whitehall. All the incentives for Ministers to be seen to be doing something about any particular problem are overwhelming. That is why EGF’s proposals are so important and must be listened to.

For so many areas of government involves this endless tug-of-war between Whitehall and Wivenhoe. But unlike that traditional game, although much energy is expended, no one ever wins: they play over and over. And we all pay over and over again – in poor services, higher taxes and lost local initiative.

If you are a serving or former civil servant who would like to publish, under full anonymity, blogs of similar stories of how the machinery of central government in the UK is not working, then please contact Tim Knox at the Effective Government Forum. tim.knox@egforum.org.uk. Or you can tweet us here: @effectivegovuk

Read our report on Decentralisation HERE

Read our report on Effective Management HERE

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supporting-weekly-bin-collections-prospectus--2

[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6265/ 1884691.pdf

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-review-of-waste-policy-in-england-2011.

[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-government-guidance-on-weekly-bin-collections

[5] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/15037/Weekly_Collection_Support_Scheme.pdf

[6]  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/barnett-consequentials-and-the-barnett-guarantee/barnett-consequentials-and-the-barnett-guarantee

[7] https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/sharpeedge/801-sharpeedge-environment/48910-environment-act-2021-what-does-it-mean-for-waste-authorities

[8] The Potholes Fund at paragraph 3.135 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1144441/Web_accessible_Budget_2023.pdf

[9] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/highways-maintenance-funding-allocations/additional-budget-2023-highways-maintenance-and-pothole-repair-funding-2023-to-2024

Let’s improve our governance to help democracy work better says Barry Quirk

By Barry Quirk

Former Chief Executive of Kensington and Chelsea Borough and Lewisham Councils

There’s no better time to strengthen and revitalise governance among local authorities.  For there’s real excellence in the governance of most authorities.

There are three issues that Councils need to focus on to revitalise their governance.  First, there’s the perennial need to improve Councils’ internal governance arrangements.  Adding external and independent people to help keep governance focussed on what matters can make real sense.  Probably the most innovative arrangement, for increasing public trust and confidence in Council decision making, is for an independent ethics panel to be appointed to have oversight on Council decision making processes as well as the ethical challenges that confront Councils.  

Second, Council functions and activities are a significant fraction of all public spending in a locality.  But the larger fraction is the combined activities of education, health, police & criminal justice, welfare transfer payments, and the infrastructure investments of central government.  And so, Council governance ought to make sure that it brings the sunlight of accountability to the cost-effectiveness of all public spending in their locality.  Many Councils have been doing this extremely well - working alongside local public sector partners in achieving joint goals, but also enabling stronger public accountability of these other public sector functions and services.  Each Council needs to have this external focus to add to its crucial internal focus.

Third, Councils are nothing if they are not vehicles of effective community self governance.  The civic life of the Council should pulse alongside the life of civil local society and the changing demands and preferences of local citizens.  The most effective Councils don’t perform their functions to their public, they work with their public.  They work collaboratively with service users and citizens to generate new ideas for service change.  They co-design these service changes.  And they evaluate the impact of service delivery by working together. 

Over 20 years ago, the authority I worked for, the London Borough of Lewisham, in the middle of transitioning its governance to a directly elected mayoral model, conducted several citizen juries, many citizen panels, held citizen assemblies and had many community conferences on hot topics of local concern. The aim was to increase the volume of deliberative democracy on local public issues.  At that time, the Council thought that moving to a directly elected mayoral model was a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to revitalise the connection between the Council and its communities.  The whole Council needed to be engaged in a renewed effort to revitalise democracy at the local level.  In the 2020s, the prospects for emergent dialogue between Councils and their citizens is stronger because of the ubiquity of our social media age - but only if we ensure that all participating have equal chances of engaging in respectful, tolerant and creative dialogue.

These three issues each have the capacity to absorb attention and divert Councils away from a balanced and healthy approach to strengthening its governance.  We need to be mindful of the distractions of being drawn into internalised disputes, generally about those issues that Councils do control.  We also need to avoid the distraction of focussing a disproportionate amount of our efforts on those things over which we have influence, but not strong control. 

Make sure that your internal focus does not hinder progress

Councils are periodically beset by internal squabbles about the respective roles of those 10 or so councillors who compose the ‘political executive’, and those 40-80 other councillors who perform a range of scrutiny as well as other local public functions (such as planning, licensing and the like). 

Admittedly, several Councils have retained or reverted to decision making by committees.  But most Councils organise their decision making into two domains: the political executive and scrutiny.  These options are rooted in the Local Government Act of 2000.  Over 20 years later, the simplicity of the 2000 Act can easily get lost in the fog of local political disputes about who knows what when, who decides how to address unfolding events, and who controls the agenda of what’s to be decided in the future.  In the midst of this fog, constitutional realities and democratic accountability can easily become untethered. 

For example, Councils remain constitutionally unified - when something goes dreadfully wrong it’s the Council that is open to being sued; not the political executive, nor any individual councillor or officer who made the errant decision.  From these complications stem many internal concerns within Councils - generally about how power is sourced, shared and wielded.  These issues are part of the fabric of governance but they often become ‘un-discussable’. 

Addressing these internal arguments is vital to improving the health and effectiveness of local authority governance.  Prior to the 2000 Act, every Council made decisions in broadly the same way.  But now there is considerable variety in how decisions are made.  Is this of itself a good thing, or does it hint that some decision making arrangements may have been designed for the benefit of the majority in the majority?  A simple exercise to compare and contrast the differences between the ‘schemes of delegation’ of, say, ten randomly selected Councils might helpfully trigger a broader review of the reasons for and reasoning behind the present day divergence of practice. 

The locus of public decisions

Generally, public interest decisions should be made as close as possible to those most impacted by the decision.  However, that doesn’t mean that all the most important public decisions in a locality should be made locally.  Often it is possible to find a compromise between conflicting ‘local interests’ and ‘non-local interests’.  But sometimes it just isn’t.

In 1949 Arthur Miller’s play, Death of a Salesman relates the story of Willy Loman, a down-on-his-luck traveling salesman who nurtures dangerous beliefs regarding success and who struggles with personal memories linked to neglect, desertion and disorder.  Miller was asked whether his play was about the struggle of one man undergoing distress in his family, or was it a broader narrative about the nature of distress in society and the wider economy.  His answer was, “the fish is in the sea, and the sea is in the fish”. 

National problems have local expression; and local problems may inter-twine, get amplified and generate national problems.  The challenges faced by people and communities are not well served if different tiers of government appear to the public to be arguing about whose analysis of the problem is the most correct, and who has the best legitimacy to address the problem? 

As the 2007 Lyons inquiry into local government argued, improving the overall accountability of local government requires each tier of government having, “every reason to improve their own contribution to the well-being of citizens and communities, and to support others in doing so.”  This notion of self critical and mutually supporting tiers of government may seem overly idealistic, but the ideal does not mean that the movement in this direction isn’t possible.

The key democratic connection is with citizens

When considering the strength and vitality of their governance, Councils tend to neglect the most important people - their citizens and their local civil society.  It’s often just easier to get distracted by internal necessities and external disputes about ‘who should decide what should be done’?

All governments have many citizens but each citizen has several governments.  None of us are singularly governed by one person we elect as our representative.  And as citizens we expect all who are elected in our name to enter dialogue together and to work at finding compromises between their differing versions of the public good.  Of course we expect them to bring their political convictions to bear on public problems.  That’s why we tend to elect them on the basis of their party affiliation.  But we rarely want them to only address these problems through the lens of their political convictions.  Instead we want them to maintain a connection with citizens and civil society locally - so as to keep in touch with as many citizens as they reasonably can.  Democratic accountability doesn’t just occur in the ballot box.

By making public interest decisions close to the people affected, local government is so much more likely to actively listen to these people.  And it is so much more likely to encourage them to deliberate amongst themselves and respond to suggestions for improvement locally.

Commentators often portray democracy as a pathway for political elites to establish an electoral majority for the straightforwardly naked purposes of governing.  But democracy is so much more than that - it is an ideal, a process, and an idea in action.  The rhythms and pulse of democracy can be found in the everyday life of every community.  Democratic practice is not confined to the high arts of statecraft.  It infuses the common and everyday life between us all. 

Democracy involves people learning how to disagree with each other so that they can live together as equals without resorting to violence or competitive strategies of domination.   Where some win - but others seem always to lose.  In this fuller sense, democracy involves an open, emergent and deliberative style, as much as it requires formal and institutional foundations for governing. 

In 1958, Eleanor Roosevelt was asked to respond to a question about where universal human rights begin.  She answered:

“Where do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close, and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world.  Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or offices where he works.  Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.  Unless this rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.  Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”

Eleanor Roosevelt’s response presents the case with real clarity.  Improving governance is not simply about strengthening the ethical framing of Council purposes - though that is important.  Nor is it simply about reviewing the ‘parchment barriers’ that separate different layers of public authorities - again an important focus.  Perhaps more than both, improving and strengthening governance requires a rich seam of everyday connections between Councils and the citizens that elect them and the communities that they serve.

Download the EGF report on Decentralisation HERE

Take back control – locally

By Tim Knox

EGF Editor

Recent polling from Savanta – here – shows that most people in the UK want more control to be exercised at a local level:

•       Seven in ten people (69%) want their community to have more control over how their council delivers services. Only 3% want less control.

Earlier polling in April 2023 – here – reinforces this strong desire for more local control:

•       56% want a greater proportion of their taxes raised by and for their local community instead of by central government. Only 14% disagree.

•       Over three in five (63%) want elements of health and social care to be devolved to a more local level. Only 11% disagree.

There is also a great disconnect between what people feel they should do and what they actually do: Four in five people (81%) say that it is important to vote in local elections – yet only about 30% of people actually do so.

This illustrates powerfully how people feel that they are effectively disenfranchised.

Finally, in an age of cultural divide between right and left, young and old, Remain and Leave, one policy change on which a majority of voters agree is the call for greater localism.

The above findings come from a Savanta poll of 2,055 UK adults aged 18+ online between 9 and 11 June 2023. Data were weighed to be representative of the UK by age, sex, region and social grade.

Read our report on Decentralisation HERE