Local Democracy in England

Local democracy in England is ensured through the local authorities, which are the only source of regional governance in England. Local authorities play a key role in the realisation of local democracy. In England, there is a mixed system of single-tier local government in shire areas, London boroughs and metropolitan district councils. In some counties, there is a two-tier local government, in which there are county councils (upper tier) and district councils (lower tier).

It has been noted that the need for a strong grassroots democracy is essential in a democracy. This is even more necessary in England, because of the unwritten constitution, which depends on a strong democracy. As noted,

“a strong democracy requires two important elements; popular participation at the local level; and popular participation at the national level. The two are interconnected. If popular participation at the grass roots continues to decline in this country, then the national body politic will not be immune from the consequences.”

Therefore, local democracy and national democracy are interconnected and essential for the purpose of realisation of a strong democracy and achievement of constitutional principles. The relationship between central government and local government is such that while the national strategic goals are set by the national government, the local governments are meant to help achieve these goals but are meant to have autonomy. Therefore, there must be equitable distribution of power between the central government and the local authorities so that the aims of local government are realised. Particularly, the local authorities are to have freedom for shaping the development within their own communities and encourage local innovation in governance. This equitable balance of power is at present not achieved in the current relationship between the central government and local authorities. It may be said that the current relationship hinders local democracy.

The current relationship between central government and local authorities is the culmination of the process of relationship that has shifted powers significantly to central government since the Second World War. The predominant trend in the relationship between central government and local authorities has been the central government increasing its powers and responsibilities at the expense of local government. England is now considered to be one of the most centralised democracies in the developed countries.

One of the areas where centralised powers are seen in England is in taxation. Taxation is controlled by central government and local authorities have no powers with regard to taxation. Any taxation that can be decided and controlled by the local authorities is capped by the central government. Therefore, the central government controls the taxation that is otherwise done by the local authorities.

Other areas that are controlled largely by the central government include health, education, housing, and planning, which have seen greater shifting of powers away from the local authorities towards the central government. Another area that has seen greater shift of power from the local authorities to the central government is in the area of school funding, which has been “ring-fenced” by the central government. This is significant because local government depends on the grants provided by the central government for almost 75 percent of the expenditure. In context of schools, dedicated schools grant provided by the central government also means that local government has less autonomy on education expenditure, because the funding is directly provided to the schools and not through the local governments. Even the area of social housing that was once a strong area of governance for the local authorities, is now managed through housing associations and arm’s-length management organisations. All this has increased the central government’s powers and decreased local authorities role in governance within their communities. In effect, there is an increase of central government role in local government, which weakens local democracy in England. It may be noted that the powers of local authorities have either been pushed upwards towards the central government; or these responsibilities and functions have devolved downwards to local bodies that are the regional arms of the central government.

The Local Government Act 2000 did make some positive changes by introducing powers for local authorities to undertake actions for social, economic and environmental well being of their area. These are called the well-being powers. It has been noted that these well-being powers are a positive step for the enhancing the power and discretion of local government. However, it must also be noted that the Local Government Act 2000 also increased the scrutiny of the central government for the purpose of increasing the visibility, and transparency of local government. The Act also introduced a change in the way the local authorities go about their business by introducing the legislative requirements over how local authorities carry out their responsibilities. The Local Government Act 2009 further increases the oversight of the central government in a way that has been seen to be an unnecessary interference with the powers of the local authorities and a greater centralisation of powers of the central government. Moreover, there is a criticism that the central government has exposed a tendency to follow a ‘strong leadership’ philosophy with respect to how leadership is formulated at the level of local authorities, which does not go well with the local conditions at all times. In any case, such requirements of strong leadership by telling the local authorities how to organise tenure, amounts to interference with the work of the local governments, which is criticised by some local authorities, like Lancanshire. As noted in the report of the House of Commons, there is a suggestion by some local authorities that there should be more Local Area Agreements (LAAs) and Multi Area Agreements (MAAs) so that more space is provided to the local authorities with the objective of giving more freedom to local authorities to decide their priorities in collaboration with local partners.

Concern about the central government assuming greater powers in local governance and the increasing decrease of the powers of the local authorities, is not new and has been raised in important inquiries in the past. Reference may be made to the Layfield Report, which made important recommendations (that were not implemented) that the government should choose between a “centralist” model, or a “localist” model under which local authorities would have the main responsibility for the level and pattern of expenditure on local services. The report recommended devolution of powers to the local government, including the power of taxation. However, as noted above, these recommendations were not accepted by the government, and the powers of the central government have increased.

Recently, the Lyons Inquiry has also made recommendations for strengthening local government in England. The main recommendation made by this report was that instead of providing only specific services to the communities, the local authorities should play a strategic role in government, which should not be limited to narrow and specific services but wider area of governance. The logic behind this is that local authorities can use their powers creatively and for the benefit of their communities and citizens. The two reasons for greater local governance are also noted by the Lyons Inquiry: tailoring to the needs of local areas and enabling decision making; and enabling local people “to have a greater say in decisions that directly affect their lives.”

To be fair, the centralisation of powers in favour of central government and in a shift away from local governments, seems to be in line with the public opinion, which increasingly looks to their MPs and central government to resolve their grievances of unsatisfactory local services. Moreover, when the services provided by local authorities are different from one to the other local authority, there is a general notion of failure of local authorities to provide universalised services and a greater demand for centralised powers. As noted in the House of Commons report, “England’s centralist culture inhibits further devolution.” In certain areas, like delivery of health care, localism has generally suffered because of the difficult task of providing equality of treatment to citizens where there is a greater inequality.

To conclude, it may be noted that local government powers have gradually been eroded and there is a shift in the powers to the central government over the decades since the post Second World War. Public opinion seems to have been one reason for why localism was eroded particularly when the challenges of providing universalised services by the local authorities is considered to be a failure of local authorities, generating more demand for localism. The prevailing conditions are not good for local democracy because local governments are gradually losing responsibilities that are shifting towards the central government. As noted in the beginning of the essay, stronger democracy demands central and local democracy. The current relationship between central and local governments does not allow such strong democracy to flourish in England, making it one of the most centralised democracies amongst the developed countries.

Books

Leach S, Stewart J and Jones G, Centralisation, Devolution and the Future of Local Government in England (Routledge 2017).

Reports

Layfield Inquiry, Report of the (Layfield) Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance (HMSO 1976).

López AN, Report of the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) (Council of Europe 2007).

Lyons Inquiry, Final Report, (London: TSO 2007).

House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee, The Balance of Power: Central and Local Government: Sixth Report of Session 2008–09 (TSO 2009).