Localism

The Government has announced its intention to instigate a radical devolution of power to local level, giving new powers and opportunities to councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals. The Localism Bill embodies some of the specific changes the Government wishes to make to put this into practice, but the Government’s agenda is much broader than the measures in the Bill, and implicates all government departments. This inquiry set out to examine the interpretation and implementation of this policy throughout Government, whether the Government’s idea of localism is shared by other stakeholders, how local democracy and public service delivery might change in response to this agenda, and what obstacles might exist to those changes.

The principle of localism is not controversial; it commands cross-party support, and we welcome the emphasis that the Government has put on decentralisation. The Government’s approach in practice, however, has thus far been marked by inconsistency and incoherence, not helped by a definition of localism that is extremely elastic. This has allowed individual departments to adopt definitions of localism that suit their other policy aims, rather than definitions that are internally consistent or developed in consultation with other stakeholders. Some policy areas remain notably more centralised than others.

The Government has not produced a compelling vision of what its imagined localist future will look like and the functions and responsibilities of the players within it.

Greater clarity and certainty is needed. The role of the Minister for Decentralisation promises to bring coherence, rigour and a sense of priorities to the Government’s programme for localism; his success in this will be crucial, and closely monitored.

Localism should not be adopted purely as a way to achieve reductions in public sector costs, for it is unclear whether it will be able to deliver this in the short term. It is not certain that the financial benefits of more tailored services will immediately offset losses in efficiencies of scale. Stimulating greater democratic participation and civic activism will carry its own costs if it is to be successful and sustainable.

There is not universal support for the idea that central government should retreat entirely from local affairs, allowing accountability to local people to replace performance monitoring from the centre. In particular, organisations representing vulnerable, marginalised or minority groups argue that these sections of the community need protection that cannot be provided by the current mechanisms of local democratic accountability. These mechanisms must therefore be enhanced and improved. National minimum service standards, in some form, may be necessary. Most importantly, clarity and consistency is needed from the Government about which tier of government will hold which responsibilities, and on what grounds it will intervene at the local level.