For some time now, and rather quietly, government has been putting in place a structure for increased accountability of local authorities to central Government.
Those frustrated with the requirements the Government makes of the sector through its approach to bidding for funding, and the management of new burdens, could be forgiven that this is more of the same. Certainly, what we have heard recently about the Office for Local Government (Oflog) – league tables for fly-tipping, and other delights – reinforces this view.
What I hope to persuade you is that – perhaps – the increasing drumbeat of oversight from ministers and civil servants on Marsham Street could in fact be a good thing. We could be on the cusp of a more realistic attitude by Government towards the pressures and burdens of the sector and, these steps can and should be welcomed.
To understand this point of view we have to start with the Levelling Up White Paper. In brief, it posited the idea the drive to devolve power to local areas would need to be accompanied by strong and more effective accountability.
This policy direction is not something of interest only to new and emerging combined authorities – something easily ignorable by the main sequence of councils in England. In order to access the full range of levers for economic development (in particular, those being made available to councils through the abolition of Local Enterprise Partnerships) councils will need to join up with their neighbours – placing them on what Government will hope is a track towards a formal deal.
This is all part of the direction of travel set by the ‘devolution framework' – part of the mechanism by which Government will judge the readiness or capability of areas of England to take on new powers and freedoms. The framework is part of the same overall superstructure of Oflog – together, they form part of the first moderately systematic approach to Government-led accountability of the sector since 2010. Another element is the new set of arrangements for fiscal accountability that Government proposes as part of the English Devolution Accountability Framework (EDAF) – of which more in a moment.
Government will, however, understand that it cannot recreate the Audit Commission (even if it wished to) and as such, there are two sector-owned measures that it will recognise must form part of this landscape.
The first is, of course, national sector-led improvement activity. In describing sector-led improvement as having been a success story of the past decade (which I do believe it to be) I ought to note that the organisation for which I work is part-funded by the grant that Government provides to the Local Government Association to undertake this vital work. The more effective sector-led improvement is, the less ‘heavy' oversight from Whitehall has a right to be.
The second is the presence of strong local accountability systems. This is where EDAF comes in. The framework currently applies to combined authorities, existing and aspiring, but may well come to apply to local authorities, in time. It puts in place bold expectations around local accountability systems – in particular, local scrutiny arrangements – to improve, for which a ‘Scrutiny Protocol' is being developed. The idea is that, with strong local systems in place for challenge and oversight, alongside national sector-led systems, the need for Whitehall-focused accountability is lessened further.
And here, Government is ambitious. It says: ‘Membership on [scrutiny] committees should be prized and competed for. Retention of members for several years should be common. Members should be able to devote the time to the role. And the committees should have the profile and cachet to ensure that their findings are brought to the attention of the public wherever necessary.'
This is bold – and these kinds of aspirations are of course easy to write down in policy papers, rather more difficult to enact. The scrutiny protocol, we can expect, will once drafted provide the practical mechanism to produce this significant enhancement of local accountability.
One thing notably absent from the EDAF in its current form is the plan, for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, for the establishment of panels or committees of local parliamentary scrutiny committees as an additional scrutiny body (see Demos article). I am dubious about whether this form of scrutiny will ‘stick', and add value – we need to see much more about these proposed bodies and how they will practically function. Local MPs are of course interested (rightly) in the business of combined authorities in their patch. But it remains to be seen whether this is the right way for that interest to be sated.
The reason why all this – an accountability and oversight framework which feels like it imposes additional burdens on the sector – might actually be good, rather than something to be feared, is it promises to place central-local relations on a more stable footing. The history of Government's attitude towards the local government sector over the past decade has oscillated between interventionism (the periodic obsession with flags, the apparent need for everyone to have the same colour bins) and laissez-faire (sector finances generally, the parlous state of adult social care). Absent a framework within which a relationship can develop and grow, the level of ‘oversight' has moved around with the whims and interest of successive secretaries of state. It has been an unequal relationship in which one partner (government) has been unpredictable, and at times difficult to engage.
Things like Oflog and the EDAF will, possibly, bring stability and predictability.
But there is a big if – a more mature and sophisticated relationship is not guaranteed. Next year heralds a General Election. Levelling up is, by the Government's own admission, the job of a decade or more – yet in the 18 months since plans for the Bill were first announced, the Government's appetite for the idea as more than a slogan has felt variable. Recent announcements do suggest a recommitment, but who knows?
The answer to this challenge perhaps lies in the fact economic development and growth will be a central feature of policymaking for more than the next few years. In order to deliver against its agenda Government will need to work in partnership with local or combined authorities; it will seek to do that by devolving power (and hopefully funding). For all this to work without the need for Audit Commission 2.0, strong local accountability systems will be vital.
Ed Hammond is acting chief executive of the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny
@cfgscrutiny
