Introduction

In a world of ever decreasing budgets and deep cuts to core services, “Devolution” is seemingly the biggest opportunity for local government. Local government is right to seek greater powers as well as demanding adequate resources because people still need esse

Local authorities have faced a tough time since the financial crash of 2007/08. Council spending was estimated to have fallen by just under a third during the last Parliament. (1)  Initial indications suggest a similarly drastic reduction in funding between 2015-20. Such cuts have prompted some respected local authority figures to refer to “the end of local government as we know it.” (2)

Recently, George Osborne announced at the Conservative Party conference that grants to local authorities would be phased out altogether. In their place, local authorities will be allowed to retain their business rates and to lower them, and in very specific circumstances including support from local businesses and elected mayors, to raise them too.

There is no detail yet on how any equalisation process might work between those council areas fortunate to receive very large amounts in business rates and those who are not. Without some form of central redistribution this “opportunity” will simply lead to greater inequality and less real opportunity for many communities.

 The Devolution Agenda

The Government is also inviting local authorities to come together to bid for additional powers and freedoms. Across the country, new Combined Authorities are emerging – bringing together councils from areas that may or may not logically fit together. Greater Manchester (Devo Manc) is the trailblazer that others are keen to follow. There is a long list of other areas in the queue –some having secured devolution and others seeking it – Sheffield, West Yorkshire, North East, Tees Valley. Rural shires and urban city regions all wish to join in and understandably so.

However, this devolution comes with strings attached: the need to combine adjoining councils into much larger entities whilst retaining the existing council structure; an elected mayor; and very quick decisions to meet Government timetables.  Elected mayors based on the London model might offer some degree of democratic accountability and the kind of leadership to drive change, attract investment and maximise influence. Both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson have each in their own way shown the value of this approach, but they were both accountable through scrutiny to the Greater London Authority (GLA) – it is not clear that the new mayors will be similarly accountable.

In the rush to gain what is on offer, there is a real danger that something fundamental has been forgotten along the way: the need to retain the core democratic elements of local government. Some have argued that local democracy itself is already under threat from the scale of Government cuts to services. The democratic deficit in Devolution may make matters worse.

We know too that the public already has real trouble understanding who is accountable for their local services – be it the Council, other public bodies and sometimes businesses, especially in areas with county and district councils. This difficulty has been magnified in recent years as councils have rightly sought closer integration of services with other public agencies. With the creation of larger Combined Authorities, this problem may get even worse unless there is clarity and openness, and the role of the local authority and their elected councillors is clear and not diminished.

 Where is the democracy in the rush to devolution?

Bluntly, there is a real democratic deficit at the heart of the devolution proposals that needs to be addressed.

So far, the process of deciding which local councils should combine with whom, which powers they should seek, and what Government conditions they are prepared to accept has been an entirely technocratic process or at best one undertaken by a few council leaders. It is easy to see and understand how this may have happened – as the Government set such a break-neck timetable for bid submissions from councils.

As a result, at most a handful of leading councillors and officers have been involved and taken all the decisions. Back-bench and parish councillors have largely been ignored, and it is hard to find many examples of Council resolutions discussing and endorsing the content of the proposals.

The situation is worse regarding other stakeholders. While major local businesses may have been involved to a limited extent, there is no evidence in most cases that the voluntary sector or wider civil society have been consulted. This is a major omission and the public to date has been entirely excluded – learning about the whole process via the media, if at all.

The leader of Durham Council, Simon Henig, is the first to break ranks and call for an “advisory poll” of local residents to decide whether Durham should join the proposed North East Combined Authority. There has also been a Citizens Panel on Devolution run by DemSoc in Coventry recently.

In another worrying development, it has been revealed that some of the new devolution deals are apparently not even available to public scrutiny after the event either.(3)

Although the powers, context and nature of a Combined Authority are very different from that of a city or borough mayor, it is easy to see why in the public perception, it appears that areas such as Manchester and West Yorkshire, which both voted against having a local mayor (Salford though had voted for a mayor), are now having one imposed on them for the new Combined Authority.

This has led, not surprisingly, to a vociferous local campaign for a referendum on this element of Devo Manc and a 38 Degrees petition.(4) It seems strange that councils need a referendum to adopt a local mayor, but not the new Combined Authorities.

How will accountability work?

In the new Combined Authority areas one might have assumed that the final responsibility lay with the Mayor, but in Greater Manchester the Combined Authority and a committee/board of the NHS and local authorities will both also have powers not available to the mayor. How will that work exactly? How can the people get rid of the Mayor or at least require her/him to answer questions?

In London, there is a Greater London Authority to hold the Mayor to account: which structures will do that in Devo Manc or other CA areas? Can the Mayor be removed mid-term? And if so, how? How will scrutiny work? The answers to these questions are not at all clear.

Within the CA areas, how will differences of policy and priority be resolved – there is no democratic structure to decide? How will the public be involved in any of this – how will they have their say? How will they know how to exercise their democratic rights in an unelected structure?

What role and influence will elected councillors have? How will they be able to hold their own leaders as well as elected mayors and combined authorities to account?

The combination of huge budget cuts, newly created areas with which people have little local connection, and new unelected structures, creates real dangers: that the crucial role of local people having a say on local priorities could be completely lost; and their relationship with local councillors changed in ways not yet understood.

There is a real danger of Devolution being ‘done’ to local areas and local people, rather than with them and through them. Even though council leaders are acting in good faith for their place and its communities they need to avoid both the perception and the reality of excluding the public and civil society.  Such approaches could undermine an already low level of public confidence in the political process and government – though hitherto the public has a much higher regard for local government than it does for central government.

Place matters as does the identification of citizens with place. Surely the new Combined Authorities should have boundaries and cover areas that people relate to or they risk being seen as remote and an irrelevant imposition.

 Conclusion

It is understandable and right that Councils have been keen to embrace the Devolution agenda, given the Government’s timetable and the desire for more powers after decades of Government centralism and drastic budget cuts. But they should do so on terms that suit their areas’ agenda, not the government’s (one).

It is wrong in principle and in practice to ignore the genuine concerns of a democratic deficit at the heart of this process.

Councils and political leaders need to deepen their processes of engaging with the public on changes to services and to governance. A significant reconfiguration of local councils should require consultation with the citizens of those areas prior to it being agreed. The reasons for the proposal, the alternatives that have been considered, and the pros and cons of each should all be made available.

And whatever forms of governance are eventually agreed, it is essential that the public knows how they can influence local priorities, how those in charge are elected and, if they wish to, how they can get rid of them!

There need to be clearly defined scrutiny processes to ensure democratic accountability. There needs to be a mechanism to allow for local choice within the wider policies and approaches of large Combined Authorities.

Given that different areas of the country are rightly likely to have different devolved powers and probably different governance arrangements, there must be clarity on what these arrangements are in each area and which body/ politician(s) is accountable for what.

Rather than the move to greater devolution becoming synonymous with a democratic deficit, it could and should be an opportunity to extend and deepen democracy. Perhaps local citizens assemblies could be convened to consider such proposals.(5) More radical forms of democracy might be introduced – local referenda on key issues associated with the devolution agenda. Perhaps participatory budgeting could be introduced whereby 1% of the Combined Authority budget was allocated with direct public involvement.(6)

There should be votes in the council chambers of councils involved in a particular proposal. Elected councillors have to be able to represent their communities when these decisions are made.

And any proposal for a combined authority or other form of devolution should have to include proposals for democratic scrutiny and a commitment to public involvement and consultation with some specified details, not simply vague words.

Whatever approaches are adopted they should be based on the principles of democratic participation and accountability. If English Devolution is promoted or perceived only to be about economic growth and technocratic solutions, it may prove to be unsustainable. People should be in control.

 The Institute View

The Institute believes that, whatever the pressures for agreeing the transfer of new powers to local government, it is incumbent on politicians and officers in those areas to ensure that the process is transparent, that local people have a genuine say over what is being proposed and that robust mechanisms of accountability are put in place.

The proposals included in Devolution deals should on principle be published and available for public scrutiny.

The public has a right to be consulted on proposed changes to how local services are provided and how their local area is governed, though how this consultation is organised may vary in each area. Specifically, in cases where a mayor is being introduced covering areas that have previously rejected it, there is a particular responsibility to ensure public consultation.

Finally, with complex new structures involving a number of local authorities, there is a clear case for ensuring that robust forms of accountability are introduced so the public knows who is in charge of what and how they can challenge and hold them to account.

 Relevance

This briefing is of relevance for Councillors, MPs & MEPs, local authority chief executives and senior officers, senior civil servants, police, NHS leaders and LEPs, and consultation and public engagement lead officers.

 Further insights

This paper was written by Davy Jones (www.davyjonesconsultancy.co.uk) and John Tizard (www.johntizard.com) for the Consultation Institute.

Notes are published by the Institute in good faith as a member benefit, but the information provided cannot be relied upon as constituting advice giving rise to any legal or other liability whether express or implied.

• CIPFA in July 2015: http://www.cipfa.org/about-cipfa/press-office/latest-press-releases/council-spending-in-england-falls-by-32-per-cent
• Sir Albert Bore, 2012
•  Municipal Journal 22 October – survey showing a third of the proposed devolution deals have not yet been published.
• https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/people-must-have-right-to-vote-on-devo-manc#_=_
• http://www.localgov.co.uk/Two-Citizens-Assemblies-will-explore-future-of-local-government/39625
• http://pbnetwork.org.uk/devo-manc-an-opportunity-missed-to-devolve-power-beyond-the-town-hall-steps/

This is the 15^th Briefing Note; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement