Giving power to people and communities - Nick Clegg speech to the LGA (part 1)

3 July 2008

I want to talk today about decentralisation.

Giving power to people and communities.

That’s probably not a big shock to any of you.

The Liberal Democrats have been talking about decentralisation – giving power to people and communities – for a generation or two.

And these days, if we’re honest, most politicians in most parties have caught on.

Whether it’s “double devolution” from Labour or the “post-bureaucratic age” from the Conservatives, the notion of dismantling excessive central government and transferring power to local communities is very much in vogue in the political rhetoric of our age.

Now, it’s always nice when people agree with you.

So you might expect the Liberal Democrats to be dancing on the tables saying: “Yes! They finally got it! They finally realised we need to devolve power if we want to make Britain fairer!”

There’s just one problem. They didn’t really get it.

This is a room full of councillors. I expect most of you do get it.

You see the potential of what you could achieve if your every move wasn’t stifled by the dead hand of Whitehall interference.

But the sad truth is that the national politicians in Labour and the Conservative parties have missed the point of devolution.

They talk the talk. And that’s it.

The Liberal Democrats are different, and always will be different.

We don’t just talk about empowering people and communities. We are making it happen, every day.

So today I want to look at what decentralisation should really be about. What it can achieve. And how we can make it more than a rhetorical fad.

I am drawn to the philosophy of decentralisation and local empowerment for many reasons.

There’s the basic principle of subsidiarity – the liberal belief that decisions just ought to be taken as close to the people they affect as possible.

But it’s more than that.

Centralised government simply doesn’t work to deliver the change I want for Britain. It doesn’t improve services fast enough. And it certainly doesn’t deliver fairer outcomes – where everybody gets opportunities no matter their background.

If the New Labour decade has taught us anything – this is surely it.

The great experiment of trying to improve our public services for everyone by pouring money in through a tight funnel in Number 10 Downing Street has failed.

And there’s now no more money to put in.

So it’s time to think about how we improve our public services – not just how much we spend on them.

And the biggest “how” of all is decentralisation.

Just look at some of the best models of public services across Europe – and you’ll see it’s the localised ones that work best.

And – crucially for me, and the Liberal Democrats as a progressive party – the localised services are those that deliver the fairest outcomes as well.

In Britain today there is often a pervasive notion that the only way to deliver fairness and opportunity for all is to have absolute rigid uniformity.

And this generates the media refrain of a postcode lottery.

But people are different.

Uniform services – almost by definition – do not fit individuals.

We need variation, flexibility and personalisation in the way services are run and delivered if they are to fit into real people’s lives.

A postcode lottery is a terrible thing.

But the terrible part isn’t that things are different in different areas.

The terrible part is the lottery – it’s that you don’t get to choose what fits you, or fits your postcode.

I want things to be different in different places.

I want things to be different for different people.

I just want people to be able to choose what suits them – not have it handed out arbitrarily by a bureaucratic lottery no-one understands.

I’ve explained why I want to devolve power.

Now I want to address what I really mean by devolution – because it’s a word that’s often used, but rarely followed through.

Real localisation means giving communities autonomy.

The power to disagree with central government.

And to do something different.

I believe this is only possible when communities are in charge of their own money.

It doesn’t matter how much you negotiate agreements, promise to cut targets, do away with inspections, or tinker around with concordats.

In the end, if local government is spending central government’s money – central government will want a big say in what it’s spent on.

So at the heart of any real plan to transfer power downwards in Britain must be a plan to transfer taxation downwards.

Britain has the second most centralised taxation system in Europe.

Second only to Malta.

And Malta has a population about the same size as Croydon.

This has to change.

Until it does, all this talk of double devolution and post-bureaucratic ages will be so much hot air.

It will just be national politicians telling local councils to devolve power to individuals and communities, while devolving nothing from the centre.

That second stage of devolution – from councils to people – is vital for responsive, flexible services.

It’s vital to give people control over what goes on in their neighbourhoods.

But it will never be enough while central government aggregates as much power as possible to itself.

Councils can’t devolve power if they don’t have any themselves.

Let’s take a look at what Labour and the Conservatives are actually offering.

I believe they are letting you – as councillors – down, as well as the communities you serve.

The government’s approach to devolution is not about empowering communities.

It’s about absolving the government of blame for things that might go wrong, or be unpopular - while still maintaining enough control to take the credit if things go well.

Basically, they’re attempting to centralise praise, and devolve criticism.

This manner of treating councillors like children – instead of elected politicians with a democratic mandate – ruins good ideas.

Take local area agreements.

A great idea in principle, giving local authorities more power to coordinate local services.

Local authorities were supposed to be able to choose their own priorities, suited to their own communities.

Instead, they have to choose from a pre-defined list of government priorities.

How is that local control?

Eco-towns – another rather good idea – have been messed up, too, by the government’s failure to recognise the importance of genuine local control.

The central idea of eco-towns is a good one.

As we build the new homes we need, let’s make them as sustainable as possible.

Let’s stretch ourselves beyond what’s needed, push back the boundaries and create world-leading green communities.

But they haven’t gone far enough in terms of sustainability.

They’re just aiming for energy efficiency that should be the norm – not the gold standard.

And many of the proposed new developments look dangerously like commuter havens.
Homes may be energy efficient but if their location and the local facilities mean people drive everywhere, the overall environmental impact may be negative.

Beyond the unambitiousness of these proposals from an environmental perspective, there’s the government’s determination to ride roughshod over the wishes of local people.

These developments are not included in local structure plans.

In fact, some have already been turned down for planning permission – the government’s badging them eco-towns to crowbar them through.

Their determination to ignore local wishes is profound.

So profound that one council’s application for eco-town status was turned down solely because the development was included in the local plan.

How can a minister look at an application which fits every other criterion and say – “Local people actually want this. No, sorry, can’t support it.”

The truth is the government is dreadful at localism, because they fundamentally believe that central government knows best.

That local people should be given control only as and when they promise to do what they’re told.

It’s such a pervasive belief that the government can’t even get regionalisation right – let alone devolving further down the scale.

Look at regional ministers, one of the Prime Minister’s bright ideas from last summer.

They’ve been in place for a year.

But they don’t answer parliamentary questions. They don’t face scrutiny from parliamentary committees. They don’t – and I’m quoting Hazel Blears here – make policy decisions for their regions. They don’t even seem to visit their regions very often – I discovered recently that the East of England minister hadn’t quite made it to Essex yet 12 months into the job.

In fact, it’s not clear what these pointless gimmicks do spend their time doing. Except costing us a lot of money.

I’ve looked into this – and by the time of the next general election we taxpayers will have spent well over two million pounds on this futile project.

It’s time to scrap regional ministers and spend the money on something useful.

Devolving power isn’t about having a national minister “advocating” national policy in the regions.

It’s about letting the regions – and below them, councils, communities and people – make decisions for themselves.

It’s because the government doesn’t want to go this far that their approach to the fundamental issue of money is so wishy-washy.

They’re only interested in supplementary top-ups for councils.

Like additional business rate supplements

But what we need is a total restructuring of local government finance.

So councils are raising at least three quarters of the money they spend in their own community – not dependent on central government for it.

Sadly, the Conservatives won’t go anywhere near changing local government finance. Perhaps their fingers are still burnt from the poll tax crisis of twenty years ago.

Remember - in government, the Conservatives had an abysmal record of centralisation. Introducing rate-capping. Compulsory competitive tendering. And nationalising the business rates.

They were the ones who began the hoovering up of powers by central government that has done so much damage to Britain’s communities.

So I am sceptical of their claims to believe in localism now.

Especially when it’s so clear they’ll say anything to win.

No matter how inconsistent.

You all know that one of the most important things councillors have to do is play a role in planning housing for the needs of local people.

Making sure there are enough homes – but communities aren’t damaged by insensitive new development.

I’m sure every one of you has had to make difficult decisions, weighing up the pros and cons of different proposals.

Let me read you a couple of things David Cameron has said about housing developments.

At a Conservative party conference, he said – and I quote – we have to build “more flats for young people”.

But just two weeks later he said we should have “fewer homes for young single people”.

And then the next day, his housing spokesman changed the party’s mind again and said we should be building more bungalows.

Just imagine what your neighbours and constituents would think of you as a councillor if you changed your mind three times in two weeks about something so sensitive as new homes.

This is a reckless approach to public policy.

Insisting on some Conservative right to enter Number 10 without deigning to tell us why, or what they’ll actually do once the door is closed behind them.

While the Conservatives have no commitment to decentralise our tax system - while they have nothing to say about the unfair Council Tax - and nothing to say about nationalised business rates - their claims to a localist agenda will ring hollow.

They are letting down their colleagues in local government.

So what should we do to localise power in Britain? And put communities back in charge of their own destinies?

[Click here to read part two]