When the Communities and Local Government Select Committee investigated the balance of power between central and local government in the last Parliament, we concluded that all governments, no matter how determined they say they are to decentralise power, end up reverting to centralist type. With the coalition trumpeting its commitment to localism so strongly, we set out to discover whether things will be any different this time. Might there really be a decisive shift in the balance of power?

There have been some encouraging signs: an end to most of the ring-fencing in local authority budgets, for example, and the dismantling of the sometimes excessive inspection regime. But there are contradictions and inconsistencies between some ‘localist’ policies that threaten the whole project.

Concrete commitments to localism are needed from all government departments. Service integration at local level is seen as the real prize of localism by many local authorities, which have had a glimpse through Local Area Agreements and Total Place of how joining up services at local level could save money and improve quality. They are frustrated now by how slowly central government is identifying the budgets that can be devolved to make integration a reality through the ‘Community Budgets’ programme.

Other government policies, meanwhile, seem to be creating greater fragmentation, and each betrays a different interpretation of the concept of ‘localism’. In some departments, such as the Home Office with its elected police commissioners, localism is about direct democracy. The Department of Health is giving more powers for public health to local authorities, but ignoring them completely in plans for commissioning; and the Department for Education is encouraging schools to distance themselves from councils. Some elements of the welfare system, such as the Social Fund, are to be ‘localised’; while another huge part of DWP’s work, the Work Programme, will be strikingly centralised, despite councils’ desire to get involved.

There is a real danger that localism will become meaningless if the idea is applied in so many different ways. This is a significant challenge for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), which produced the Localism Bill and houses the minister for decentralisation. DCLG needs to impose coherence and a sense of priorities on the policy. In the past the department has not been a ‘big hitter’ in Whitehall; if it cannot exert the necessary influence on the implementation of localism, perhaps the Cabinet Office would be a better home for the minister for decentralisation.

The government should explicitly set out its ground rules about what is a matter for local decision-making, and what levers of power will be retained by the centre. It’s no good to say you’ll give councils greater discretion, then criticise when that discretion is used in ways ministers dislike. Parliament has a role to play here too, and all MPs should examine their own expectations about the topics on which they will call ministers to account.

All of this illustrates the paradox of attempting to push ‘localism’ from the centre. Involving people in local services, asset transfer to communities and supporting the voluntary sector are worthy aims, but will be much more effectively achieved by empowered local authorities than by centralist diktat. My committee will be keeping a close watch on the government over the coming years to see if it proves able to resist the temptation to guide localism from Whitehall.

Written by Clive Betts MP