Government cannot have it both ways by giving councils the freedom to make their own decisions on areas such as waste collection frequency but then criticising that decision if it doesnt tie in with what they believe.
That is the message from an influential select committee of MPs, which today (June 9) published a report on the governments localism agenda which calls for ministers to rein in any interventionist instincts if their policy of returning power to a local level is to remain credible.
In the Localism report, the Communities and Local Government Committee highlights specific local authority concerns over Communities Secretary Eric Pickles calling for councils to maintain weekly waste collections.
It said: The performance of waste collection services in wintry weather, the salaries awarded to senior officers, and the fate of a house in which Ringo Starr once lived are all matters on which DCLG Ministers have sought to exercise influence or make known their disapproval.
It notes comments from the Labour leader of Lambeth council in London, Cllr Steve Reed, who told the committee: It makes no sense to say you want localism, and then for the Secretary of State for Communities to say you must stick with the weekly waste collection, for instance.
What if a particular community would rather have fortnightly waste collection in order to spend some of that money on some other service that is more important to them?
In light of these comments, the committee said: Ministers must rein in their interventionist instincts if the governments localism agenda is to be credible.
Central government cannot have it both wayson the one hand giving local authorities the freedom to make their own choices, and on the other maintaining that only one of those choices is the sensible one.
Describing non-intervention as the litmus test of localism, MPs warned that the concept of guided localism would be an unhappy compromise.
Inconsistency and incoherence
The report claimed that, in general, the governments approach to localism had so far been marked by inconsistency and incoherence, with a definition of localism that is extremely elastic.
It said: This has allowed individual departments to adopt definitions of localism that suit their own policy aims, rather than definitions that are internally consistent or developed in consultation with other stakeholders.
As a result, it called for greater clarity and certainty, and said that Minister for Decentralisation Greg Clark had a key role play in bringing coherence, rigour and clear priorities to the localism programme.
Responding to the report, Mr Clark stressed the government was committed to a radical transfer of power to people and communities and would look carefully at the MPs recommendations
He said: “The government believes decentralisation should go beyond transferring power from central government to local government, important though that is. There should be a double devolution of power from central government to local government and to people and communities.
“The Localism Bill will create new rights to challenge the way local services are provided, purchase important community assets and to create neighbourhood plans”.
The government has already made real progress shifting power from central government to local government by ending 4,700 top down targets for councils, dismantling ring-fences on the way money is spent and freeing local councils from the dictates of regional strategies. The General Power of Competence will give councils new rights to act beyond their specified powers.”
Bill
The publication of the report comes as the Localism Bill, the main piece of legislation underpinning governments localism agenda, continues its progress through Parliament.
This week the bill was debated in the House of Lords, where peers raised concerns over whether the legislation would provide the level of decision-making needed for new waste infrastructure (see letsrecycle.com story).
Register for free to comment