26^th Session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities

25 – 27 March 2014 , Strasbourg, France

Speech Baroness Stowell’s Baroness STOWELL MBE , Parliamentary Under - Secretary of State for  Communities and Local Government , United Kingdom

Check against delivery

INTRODUCTION

I am very pleased to have been invited here today, to hold, as you put it in the Council of Europe speak, ‘an exchange of views with Congress members’.

Exchanging views; open and free debate, is central to the democratic traditions we prize in Europe.

So for all of us, as democrats, giving views, agreeing on some issues, disagreeing on others, and throughout, holding each other in respect is, quite simply, what we do.

And I am confident, that whether we agree or disagree, we are seeking, as each of us genuinely sees it, the wellbeing and prosperity of the 820 million people who live in the 47 countries of the Council of Europe.

DEMOCRACY

The fundamental principles which underpin European societies are those of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The Council of Europe has a proud record of promoting these core values.  This is the priority for the Council of Europe which the UK absolutely supports. 

Everything this organisation does should uphold these values – whether by Governments through the intergovernmental programmes, through the Parliamentary Assembly, and by this Congress, which uniquely brings together representatives of local and regional democracy from each of the 47 member states.  And as recent events have clearly shown, the need for this Organisation’s work in these fields is as important and necessary now as in the past.

A Congress which, through its reports on the state of local and regional democracy in each of the member states, can promote and strengthen those core values, above all, democracy.

THE MONITORING PROCESS

Accordingly, the United Kingdom welcomes and supports a process which, on each member state in turn, shines a spotlight on the state of its local and regional democracy.

It goes without saying that if such a process is to be worthwhile it has to be practically focussed, it has to be accurate, and above all, every member state has to have confidence in it.

Equally, if such a process is to be worth continuing it must over time have demonstrably made a difference.

Not to the status and powers of particular institutions, not to the status or remuneration of elected representatives, not to the status and working practices of bureaucrats at local, regional or national level.

But made a difference to the prosperity and wellbeing of ordinary people as they go about their day to day lives.

The United Kingdom monitoring report

This is the lens through which we in the United Kingdom Government view both the report which Mrs Kordfelder and Mr Uss have presented today and your recommendations.

I met Mrs Kordfelder and Mr Uss when they were in London and value the professional and careful way in which they and their advisors went about their task.

They will not be surprised if I say to you that there are some things in the report and proposed recommendations with which we in the UK Government agree, and there are some things with which we most certainly do not agree.

THE UK GOVERNMENT’S VIEWS

Overview

We agree that it is right for the report to have focussed on compliance with the legally binding Charter of Local Self-Government. This must be the prime, if not sole, focus of any worthwhile and practically oriented monitoring process.

We welcome the conclusion that, and I quote, “the United Kingdom in general complies with the obligations taken under the Charter, and that the situation has improved since the United Kingdom ratified the Charter in 1998, notably through the devolution process…”.

Devolving powers, passing genuine power down to the lowest practical level, empowering citizens, are core beliefs of our Government. A Government which is delivering on devolution.

We have legislated to give a general power of competence and greater freedoms to every local authority in England, creating the culture of localism.

We have legislated, in 2012, to hand over further powers, including fiscal powers, to Scotland.

And last week, we have introduced legislation to devolve fiscal powers to Wales.

I would now like to comment in turn on a number of the recommendations you are making about the United Kingdom.

View on proposed recommendation on oversight of councils

First, we have made localism a reality in English local government. We have swept away many central performance measures, controls, and assessments. 

Instead, we have encouraged councils to focus their effort and attention on reporting to local residents rather than government.

But we do believe that it is important to maintain robust inspection and intervention regimes on some issues: namely, providing care for the vulnerable, for children, for elderly people, for the disabled. This keeps vital protections in place for the vulnerable.  And we will not be considering changes to these arrangements.

In short, we are clear that the oversight of local government is proportionate and if the recommendation is suggesting changes, this is entirely misplaced.

View on proposed recommendation on council finance

Our greatest disagreement with the report is the underlying theme that local government, particularly in England, has insufficient funding, with a suggestion that there should be more local revenues.

That is saying, and let’s not be shy about this, there should be more local taxes; hard working families or local businesses struggling to grow should pay more of their incomes in taxes to councils. Every part of the public sector needs to do their bit to pay off the unprecedented budget deficit with which we were faced, and this includes local government which accounts for a quarter of all public spending.

As a Government, we have delivered a fair financial settlement to every part of the country, including important protections for areas where there is greater deprivation.

But we have also radically reformed the system to encourage councils to be less reliant on government grant, and instead offer them important incentives to support businesses, create jobs and build homes.  In short, we are encouraging councils to raise their own income in ways that are good for economic growth.    

But the key to provide, and indeed improve, the services required of them is that councils everywhere must radically re-engineer how they go about their business. They must fundamentally redesign service delivery. They must collaborate with one another and with public and private sector partners. 

And some councils are doing all this. Public satisfaction with council services has increased and the local property tax bills people pay are falling in real terms.

So I would suggest that if any recommendations on these matters are to meet the tests I suggested earlier for an effective monitoring process- namely that they should be

·         practically focussed,

·         accurate, and

·         targeted to improve things for the citizen,

the recommendations must as a minimum recognise the realities I have described.

View on other proposed recommendations

There are four other matters which I would specifically mention.

First, given our belief that the whole monitoring exercise is about giving a better deal for citizens, we are surprised to see the focus on councillor’s status and the suggestion that their status is in some way linked to the engagement of citizens with local democracy.

We are very clear that being a councillor is, at root, a role of volunteering to serve one’s community, to contribute to the civic life of the town, county or village in which one lives. Respect and support for elected members comes not from some institutional status, but from how they well they fulfil that role of service and local commitment.

Secondly, and closely connected with this, is the wider role councils and councillors have in leading their communities and engaging with, influencing, and coordinating, other service providers. If such a role is to be effective, it must be earned, not imposed by legislation.

Thirdly, whilst we agree that it is important for Government to work closely with local government, not least through the Local Government Associations, we are very clear that putting such consultation activities on a more, and I quote, “institutionalised and legally guaranteed” basis, is heading in the wrong direction.

Genuine collaboration is hindered rather than aided by legalistic frameworks.  It encourages people to concentrate on process rather than on substance. It may make people in power feel important, but it does not do much for the citizen.

Finally, the report raises a familiar issue, what I might term in colloquial English ‘an old chestnut’. This is that somehow things would be better if there were some constitutional or legislative recognition of the right to local self-government.

I have to say that nothing would be served by seeking to introduce such alien concepts into the United Kingdom.

There is no doubt about the continuing resilience of democratically elected local government in the United Kingdom, democratic local government complying with the Charter of Local Self-Government. The right way in the United Kingdom to strengthen democratic local government is through the kind of piece-by-piece reform processes we have been following to make a reality of localism.

CONCLUSION

So in conclusion, I would reiterate our support for a practical, well focussed monitoring process and that the UK is concerned above all with what matters to our citizens. 

I would thank again Mrs Kordfelder and Mr Uss for the professional way they have undertaken their roles.

I hope I have made my views clear in a way which helps to finalise the recommendations in the Committee of Ministers and the understanding of those who might be involved in any subsequent following up work.