|
Memorandum submitted by Unlock Democracy (LGIP 4)
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill Unlock Democracy's Evidence to the Public Bill Scrutiny Committee
About Unlock Democracy
Charter 88 and the New Politics Network have come together to launch a new campaign to tackle the crisis of legitimacy facing British politics. Unlock Democracy believes that too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few people and that there needs to be a comprehensive programme of democratic renewal. For several years now Charter 88 and the New Politics Network have worked on a variety of projects together. We have formed Unlock Democracy to ensure that Britain has a strong voice calling for democratic and constitutional reform. Unlock Democracy will work with all political parties and a wide range of groups and individuals to provide an independent and innovative debate on the future of politics.
Executive Summary
1. We are disappointed that after all the debate about double devolution this Bill lacks radical vision. This is not to say that there are not valuable proposals in this document, but its emphasis is on a remodelling of existing local government powers and practices rather than a radical programme of decentralisation. In particular it has failed to devolve significant power from Westminster to local government, with the exception of the reforms regarding parish councils and byelaws, this is single devolution at best.
2. We believe that local authorities, in conjunction with the local community should have the freedom to determine the governance structures, which best meet, their needs. It may well be that they would choose an executive model for the reasons that the government laid out in the white paper, but local communities should have the freedom to explore the options for themselves. They should have the power to act in ways that may not be 'central government approved' if they have the support of their communities. This Bill only enables local authorities to act in ways that are pre-determined by Westminster. This is not our understanding of devolution and decentralisation of power and we do no believe it will inspire citizens to become active participants.
3. While we welcome the introduction of CCfA and strengthening of local councillors ability to act as a community champions, the bill does little to extend the power of citizens or provide them with new tools to hold council and councillors to account.
4. We are concerned that much of the flexibility and respect for local decision making in the white paper has been lost. In particular the fact that the Secretary of State will have the power to direct authorities to move to unitary governance. The Government have made much of their belief in devolving power but seem unwilling in the last instance to actually let go.
Structure and Boundaries
5. In the Strong and Prosperous Communities White Paper the Government reopened the issue of two-tier governance and invites authorities to become unitary. However while the White Paper recognised that no single solution is appropriate for all areas and left it to communities to apply to move to a unitary status, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct authorities to become unitary.
6. There are strong arguments in favour of moving to unitary authorities. If communities are to hold government to account it is essential that any system is open and transparent. Too often citizens simply don't understand who is responsible for delivering which services.
7. However we are disappointed at this attempt to impose structures on local communities. We believe that unitary governance would foster good governance and welcome moves in this direction but only where it is supported by the local community. The Secretary of State should not have the power to direct authorities to move to unitary governance.
8. It is essential boundaries are set according to communities that local people recognise and support. We believe that any changes of this magnitude to local government structures should be based on the active consent of local people. Local people should be able to initiate for a referendum on this issue.
9. As with the proposed changes to Executive arrangements, which are explored below, we believe that change should not only be in one direction. Communities should have the right to petition to reverse these changes as well as initiate them.
10. In any change in local government structures we would be keen that power is devolved downwards and not taken even further away from the people.
Elections
11. The Bill proposes that all councils should move to whole council elections and councillors should serve 4 year terms. Although this will not be mandatory it will be made easier to move to whole council elections by removing the requirement for councils to get permission from the Secretary of State. The Government's view is that this will help to increase turnout in elections and it is certainly difficult to argue that electing councils in thirds increases participation in local democracy.
12. It is interesting to note that the arguments the Government put forward in the white paper in terms of fixed periods of office for councils and executives could equally be applied to Parliament.
13. Perhaps more controversially the Bill also enables councils to move to single member wards. This is part of the Government's proposals to modify the role of individual backbench councillors and making them a one-stop shop for community activism. However we have a number of concerns about this model, some of which will be explore below when discussing the community call for action.
14. Electoral boundaries should be based on real communities. We recognise that in some cases this may involve moving to single member wards.
15. However we have some concerns about his model. Moving to single member wards would end team working within wards and could potentially isolate some councillors. It may also make it even more difficult to find candidates. Also although it makes it easier for individuals to know who their councillor is, it prevents them having a choice of representatives, even different political parties to approach. It also prevents electors from expressing protest by electing different parties in the same ward.
16. It also seems strange for local authorities in England and Wales to move away from multi-member wards at a time when they are being adopted in Scotland.
Executive arrangements
17. The proposals announced in the white paper and now taken forward in the Bill are aimed at strengthening leadership within councils. The key element of this strategy is that all councils should move to a strong leadership model of either
§ a directly elected Mayor with a four year term; § a directly elected executive with a four year term; § an indirectly elected leader with a four-year term.
18. The decision as to which model to move to will be taken by a resolution of the Council, although communities will be able to petition for either of the directly elected models.
19. Our main concern is that this is a 'top down' reform. Councils are not simply empowered to choose the model of governance they believe is best for their community- they can only choose an option on the Government's list. Nor can they revert to previous models of governance.
20. We support the move to a directly elected Mayor or executive where it is supported by the local community. Strong leadership can certainly be beneficial and there is evidence that in some cases mayors have become a strong force for change. Steve Bullock in Lewisham for example has been quite innovative in engaging with and involving local citizens.
21. However we do have a number of concerns about executive governance. In particular we are concerned that power wherever it is held, should be accountable. This is even more important when power is being given to one individual. One off the advantages of the mayoral model is that the council has an identifiable person who has ultimate responsibility. This encourages a personality led style of politics which can also be quite dangerous - an individual may make lead from the front without it necessarily being in the public interest.
22. If, as proposed in the Bill, local government is to move in the Executive governance direction, we believe it is essential that the executive can be held to account. This Bill does not include any checks and balances on executive power and it is essential that this is urgently addressed. We believe work needs to be done on accountability mechanisms, such as the use of recall for executive members.
23. We do not believe that recall is an appropriate mechanism for representative positions; such as backbench councillors or MPs. Representative politics, unlike executive governance, inevitably involves compromise. Recall does not take account the need to represent the views of all communities rather than simply being able to get exactly what you want on each issue. We believe that the introduction of a proportional system, such as the Single Transferable Vote system that has been introduced for local elections ion Scotland, would be a more effective means of local people having genuine choice in the elected representatives and being able to hold them to account.
24. The Government has removed the requirement for a referendum on executive models of governance, although citizens can petition to call for either a directly elected mayor or executive. We believe that citizens should have the right to petition to initiate change or to block it. Currently referendums are used as a tool for either central or local government to 'ask the people'. We believe it should also be a tool for citizens. The right to petition for a referendum should be a safety valve for those situations when either a government won't implement a popular reform or, seeks to impose an unpopular policy.
25. The presumption in the Bill is that once a council has chosen an executive model this cannot be changed. This is not empowering communities or allowing them to respond and adapt to experience. We believe that it is essential that councils should be able to amend or change governance systems once they have been in place for at least one full electoral cycle.
26. We believe that if a slate of candidates is to be elected, as proposed in the directly elected executive model, then this should be done using the Alternative Vote system not the Supplementary Vote. The experience of SV in Mayoral elections has demonstrated that it is not able to deal with genuinely multi-party or multi-candidate elections. While it introduces and element of choice, voters are left to second guess who will be in the run off, meaning that there vote may well be wasted. We would also support the use of AV in mayoral elections.
27. We have some concerns about how a directly elected executive would work in practice. Clause 44 in the Bill states that the term of office for an executive will be four years unless the leader resigned, in which case, the slate is deemed to have resigned. It is unusual to a keep a staff team in place for years - what if an individual needed to resign because of ill health? Would the leader appoint a replacement or would there have to be a new election? Can the executive members change briefs or do they have to do the same role for 4 years? If the leader can't replace Executive members that he or she believes are not performing then that would not really be a strong leadership model.
28. If communities are to be offered the choice of different models of governance, we believe they should also have the right to choose their electoral system. In the last Parliament we supported the Local Elections (Choice of Electoral Systems) Bill promoted by David Chaytor MP.
29. That Bill made provision for referendums to be held on changing the electoral system, at both a national and a local level. However, citizens, not politicians, would be at the heart of the system.
30. If 5% of the electorate petition for it (either nationwide or within a specific local authority), a referendum must be held on whether to change the electoral system to another one (this procedure already exists for local people to demand a referendum on the question of introducing or abolishing elected mayors).
31. Instead of calling for a specific system, electors can also petition for a citizens assembly to be established, in which case an assembly of randomly selected members of the public will be set up to deliberate on whether to change the system. Their recommendation will then be put to a referendum for approval.
32. The Canadian Province of British Columbia has recently experimented with a citizens assembly. Local authorities and other policy-making bodies in the UK are increasingly using citizens' juries, which work in a similar way. We believe if the Government is committed to empowering communities then that should extend to electoral systems and not just models of governance.
Parishes
33. The idea of devolving power to neighbourhoods has been a consistent thread of the government local government policy for some time. This has now been crystallised in the extension of parish councils. For the first time London communities will also be able to benefit from parish councils - although they will not necessarily be called parish councils. The white paper proposes that these new structures could be called "community" "village" or "neighbourhood" councils.
34. The Government and the Electoral Commission currently create parish councils either in response to a petition from local residents or a review by the district/unitary authority. The Bill simplifies this process and gives the decision making power to district and unitary authorities. The initial stage of the process - the review or petition will remain the same. It will also be possible for local authorities to delegate additional functions and budgets to the parish level. The Local Government Act 1972 (clause 101) already gives councils the power to delegate the discharge of functions. We are not clear on how far this Bill is devolving new power or merely reminding councils that this is possible and desirable.
35. These reforms are to be welcomed particularly where directly elected parish councils will take over from appointed 'community representatives'. Parish councils are an important symbol of democracy and participation in the community. However it is important to recognise that, as with local authorities, parish councils often fail to find sufficient candidates and often have uncontested elections or unfilled seats. For some, parish councils are seen as tokenistic talking shops, the proposals in the Bill should address this. Some local authorities have developed Local Area Committees to address this where existing elected representatives, such as from the borough, county or district council, are delegated responsibility and a budget for their area.
36. It is essential that at whatever level decisions are taken the people making them are seen to be accountable to their communities. The extension of parish councils is one way of achieving this.
Local Leadership and Place shaping (CCfA)
37. Clauses 92, 93 and 166-167 outline the Community Call for Action (CCfA). It allows individual councillors to champion particular issues that are of concern to the communities they represent. Where possible councillors will continue to solve problems themselves and may also be given delegated budgets to solve problems in their areas. However if this is not possible they can refer the issue to the Executive. Significantly if the issue is not resolved satisfactorily, the councillor can refer the issue to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for review. This means that a council cannot simply drop an issue and that individual councillors can be far more effective at holding the Executive to account.
38. This is one most significant proposals in the Bill in terms of empowering communities and is certainly welcome, but does not go far enough. Although much has been made of the Community Call for Action it is only really building on what good councillors already do. It will certainly make it easier for individual councillors to be community advocates and follow up on concerns raised by their constituents. This is particularly important as the white paper also proposes all councils moving to an executive model, so this would give backbench councillors a more defined role. It will also make it easier for minority parties or independents to hold the council to account and encourage councillors to engage with community groups.
39. However there are dangers in this model if there is a move to single member wards. There would be a risk that rather than community champions councillors would become gatekeepers. If a community is divided on an issue how do both sides have their views heard?
40. One of the most interesting elements of this proposal is the possibility of devolving executive powers to individual councillors (Clause 166), which we welcome.
41. However CCfA does not give additional powers to councillors to act in new policy areas, it is just a more effective use of existing roles and powers. Nor does it empower communities to solve problems themselves; they are still required to use their councillor as a champion.
42. We believe that in addition to CCfA there ought to be a mechanism for communities to call for issues to be taken up. Ideally this would be with the active support of councillors but the mechanism should allow for citizens to directly put issues on the agenda.
43. We are also concerned that different processes are being established for different policy areas. Having separate processes for crime and disorder will be difficult to operate and overcomplicates the system.
Overview and scrutiny
44. Strengthening the overview and scrutiny role of backbench councillors is an important development. We welcome attempts to increase the accountability of the executive. However we are concerned that these proposals do not go far enough. In particular we are concerned that there are limits placed on the investigations that can be carried out regarding service deliver by relevant organisations. The CCfA can only be applied to local government matters and there is no statutory provision for the relevant service provider to respond to recommendations of a scrutiny investigation, although they do have to co-operate with the inquiry. Mechanisms such as the CCfA are encouraging citizens to see local government as the key authority for resolving problems. If they are unable to address all the issues that have been raised in a CCfA this will encourage disillusionment and dissatisfaction.
Local Area Agreements
45. We welcome the move towards strategic working between the different agencies that deliver local services. This will help councils to respond to the complex issues facing communities.
46. In particular we welcome the new powers for local authorities in relation to partner organisations and the statutory duty to co-operate. We believe it is essential that as the democratically elected body councils are able to hold the other bodies to account.
47. However we are concerned that in many ways local authorities are still 'first among equals' in this model. If a local authority wants to set a local target they can only do so with the agreement of the main deliver target. For example to set a target to deal with obesity they would only be able to do so with the agreement of the PCT.
48. We are also concerned that unlike in the white paper there is no upper limit set on the number of target that can be designated by the Secretary of State. Once designated a target can only be removed or amended with the agreement of the Secretary of State. By setting targets central government can wield enormous power over local government priorities and we are disappointed that the limit placed on this power is absent from the Bill.
49. It should also be noted that the Bill provides no formal mechanism for the direct involvement of citizens in determining local targets. This is one of the key differences between the Government's proposals and the Sustainable Communities Bill.
Byelaws
50. The provision in the `Bill to remove the need for the Secretary of State's approval for bye-laws is arguably the most significant devolution of powers in the Bill and is certainly to be welcomed. Councils will also be able to use fixed penalty notices to enforce byelaws. This will enable councils to respond to local concerns more quickly and is to be welcomed
Best Value - duty to secure participation
51. We welcome the reforms to the Best Value regime, both the lightening of the regulatory load and the duty to secure participation. These are potentially significant reforms but whether they actually do anything to increase participation will depend on implementation.
52. People participate where they believe they can make a difference. It has to involve devolution of power and not just dissemination of statistics. Improved information is an important starting point to empowering citizens but this alone will do little to increase participation.
Standards of Conduct
53. Unlock Democracy supports that view that the Standards Board has failed to effectively regulate conduct in local government and welcome the devolution of this power to councils. The delay in cases being heard by the Standards Board has been damaging both to individual councillors and to the reputation of local government in general. Where there are concerns about the conduct of an individual councillor or a group of councillors it is essential that this is investigated, that the system is open and transparent and that the issue is resolved as quickly as possible.
What is not in this Bill?
54. The UK is the second most centralised country with 94% of all tax revenue in this country goes through central government; the average in the European Union is around about 50%. There's one European member state where it's higher and that is Malta, where it's 100%, but Malta is about the same size as the London Borough of Croydon.
55. In the long run as long as central government raises the overwhelming majority of the money spent by local authorities then Councils will be beholden to central government and central government will want to direct how money is spent or in the words of old saying "he who pays the piper calls the tune". In the long run any renaissance in local autonomy will require a shift in balance between local and national taxation. The last State of the Nation poll conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust found that 56% were in favour of "more of the money spent by local councils should be raised locally with only 22% in disagreement.
56. While there are a number of policies and initiatives that Unlock Democracy welcomes and supports we feel that the Bill is a missed opportunity. The white paper argues that 'the simplest and most direct way to increase people's control is to give them more choice.' This is flawed: not, we emphasize, because more choice is not important but because citizen choice is not the same as citizen empowerment regarding the decisions 'affecting their areas'.
57. The Bill contains little or nothing about the devolution of decision-making powers. In particular there is little or nothing about involving citizens and communities in the decisions as to what policies councils adopt and what services are provided (as distinct from managing the services being provided)[1]
58. There is nothing that gives either citizens or communities or councils any involvement in the decisions and actions of central government. The powers of Whitehall are left virtually untouched by the White Paper and Bill.[2]
59. Therefore, there is little or nothing in the White Paper that will remedy the current situation highlighted in the White Paper (at para 2.15) that '61% of citizens feel that that have no influence over decisions (our emphasis) affecting their local areas.'
60. This is in stark contrast to the Sustainable Communities Bill being promoted by Unlock Democracy[3] which offers is genuine double devolution concerning the ways in which central and local government discharge their functions. This Bill deals with community decline, a matter or major concern to millions of people - and which impacts on a wide range of policy areas including health, social exclusion and the environment - in a way that empowers councils and citizens as regards the decisions taken and the policies and actions 'affecting local areas.
Appendix 1
The Sustainable Communities Bill
The Sustainable Communities Bill is a Private Members Bill sponsored by Nick Hurd MP aimed at
§ Reversing what has been called 'Ghost Town Britain' - the decline of local economic activity, jobs, shops facilities and services and environments with the knock-on effects that these matters cause; and § Promoting the reverse of this - what we have called 'sustainable communities' or local sustainability.
If passed into law, the Bill would give more power to local communities and councils over their neighbourhoods by a process called 'Double Devolution'.
The Secretary of State would be required to consult local authorities on issues affecting them. Those authorities would in turn consult people and organisations in their neighbourhoods, and the results of these consultations would be fed upwards in order to drive government policy.
How councils can drive government actions
The extent of the problem and the fact that previous attempts to address this have failed means that government action is required. However the Bill proposes that this action should be decided locally not in Whitehall.
The Bill requires the government to ask councils how it can promote local sustainability as defined in the Bill and to list certain indicators of local sustainability. These are
1. the provision of local services and local public services 2. the extent to which the volume and value of goods and services that are i. offered for sale and ii. procured by public bodies and that are grown or produced within 30 miles (or any such lesser distance as may be specified by a principal council as regards its area) of their place of sale or of the boundary of the public body 3. the rate of increase in the growth and marketing of organic forms of food production and the local food economy, 4. the number of local job 5. measures to conserve energy and to increase energy efficiency and the quantity of energy supplies which are produced from sustainable sources within a 50 mile radius of the region in which they are consumed 6. measures taken to reduce the level of road traffic including but not restricted to local public transport provision; measures to promote walking and cycling; and measures to decrease the amount of product miles 7. the increase in social inclusion, including an increase in involvement in local democracy 8. measures to increase mutual aid and other community projects 9. measures designed to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases 10. measures designed to increase community health and well being
These indicators are only a starting point. It is for each council to say how and to what extent they are helpful in their area - and to set any objectives needed to reverse Ghost Town Britain and promote local sustainability. Councils may also add any additional indicators that they think will apply either generally or to their area. For instance
'''Council A''' might respond by saying that as regards indicators 1-4 the following policies and resources and objectives are needed but the others are not relevant here (effectively therefore dis-applying those indicators in that area).
'''Council B''' might say that indicators 5-8 are most relevant, but of the first 4 one needs a little action but the other 3 are not relevant here (thus dis-applying those ones).
'''Council C''' might say that only indicators 2 and 8 are relevant here, but there are some extra issues, namely XXX and YYY that need to be dealt with - thus adding their own 'indicators' or issues.
In this way the government will obtain a picture from all over the country as to the policies, objectives and resources needed to promote local sustainability. And that picture will be based on evidence from councils experiencing the problems locally all over the country.
*On the basis of this the government will then be required to draw up a plan as to how it will help councils reverse Ghost Town Britain.
How can communities drive councils' actions?
Just as government must obtain the views of councils the Bill requires councils to obtain the views of their communities.
* Before submitting its demands to government each council is required to take reasonable steps to obtain the view any 'persons' (this is the wording in the Bill). 'Persons' includes any local community groups, trade associations etc.
* This means that any individual or group of individuals within a council's boundaries can suggests objectives or targets in respect of the Bill's sustainability indicators, or suggests other indicators. The council must include these points in its report if 'in its opinion' they would assist with promoting local sustainability and they are reasonably practicable. In this way communities can directly influence councils' demands to government.
Reasons that a council can legitimately reject the suggestions of communities are i. suggestions from citizens need not be included where they clash with other suggestions ii. suggestions where the cost would be out of all proportion to the benefit
It will cost money for councils to engage in the participation process. The Bill requires that this shall be paid out of central funds.
January 2007 [1] The one possible exception to this relates to the extension of tenant management schemes [2] We used the word 'virtually' because on two issues - the right to establish parish councils and the right of councils to make byelaws - the need for confirmation by the Secretary of State has been removed. [3] In conjunction with Local Works and over 70 other national organisations |