For most of the past decade, localism has been the dog that rarely if ever barked. There were the occasional growls from think-tanks and pressure groups, and some yelps from hard-done-by councils.
But in the main, central government has seen off every attempt to wrest local control from Whitehall – especially financial control.
Now though, emboldened by decentralising talk from the opposition parties, localism is off the leash, and baying for blood.
This week, the Localis think-tank launched Bold steps for radical reform, a robust attack on quangocracy by Kent County Council leader Paul Carter (see news, page 8, and cover feature on pages 20–23). Shadow local government minister Bob Neill ‘strongly endorsed’ the report’s thinking, which is being discussed at shadow Cabinet level.
Taking senior Conservative rhetoric at its word, Carter calls for devolution that goes way beyond Multi Area Agreements and Total Place.
Out would go a smorgasbord of national and regional quangos, including strategic health authorities and regional development agencies. Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission, and the police inspectorate would be cut back or abolished, and the Audit Commission reduced to its core functions.
In would come 46 ‘sub-national areas’, to deal directly with Whitehall, and take on powers over health, policing and much else.
The report claims that annual savings of up to £21bn could be made this way – an attractive prospect in straitened times.
With the influential Institute for Government declaring much of central government ‘dysfunctional’, bureaucrat-bashing has obvious appeal.
But before endorsing this latest bonfire of the quangos, opposition politicians should examine the small print. How much, for example, would it cost to abolish all these bodies and redistribute their functions? What would be the impact on local employment and strategic planning?
And, for all the shortcomings of national inspectorates, who would monitor child protection, health and environmental safety without them? Relying on local government to peer review itself does not sound like a viable alternative.
Councils are still able to raise only a fraction of their own revenue and, as the Centre for Cities reports this week, there are huge differences in the recession’s impact nationwide.
So, unless the next government is planning something truly bold on financial devolution, localism on this scale sounds like a recipe for widening inequality. Or dog-whistle politics. You decide.
Kent, they say, is the garden of England. Perhaps, in terms of Kent County Council performance, it’s the garden of Eden.
But imagine the leader of another kind of council slamming quangos and inspectors, one less roseate – the mayor of Doncaster, say or the leader of Surrey County Council. Council performance, in other words, is variable. If all you knew was the beauties of Maidstone, you might be tempted down Paul Carter’s primrose path.
Thanks to inspection, you can know more. One of its purposes is comparison. Through the prism of others’ performance we learn about our own. A virtue of Oneplace (we say) is the way it encompasses local chocies and priorities and a wider perspective on service delivery. Judy Hirst says peer review is limited, and Doncaster proves it. Reviews of corporate governance of the kind we are now starting in Doncaster are rare but make a strong case for external and independent monitoring and inspection.
Kent’s reputation and self-esteem owe something to the very inspection and external scrutiny that are now in the dock. Without its scores in Comprehensive Performance Assessments and its write up in Oneplace, would Kent county council be quite as confident? Inspectors don’t want thanks, but a mote of acknowledgement would be nice.