Policy Briefing Strong and Prosperous Communities White Paper

Transcription

1 Policy Briefing Strong and Prosperous Communities White Paper by Alexandra Runswick Parliamentary and Policy Officer 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 The government published its long awaited Local Government white paper on 26 th October. This briefing focuses in detail on the proposals to devolve power to councils and citizens and to increase participation in local democracy but the appendix includes a summary of all the key proposals. The White Paper contains a number of good ideas and policies regarding greater information for citizens regarding local authority (and other public body) activities; greater choice for local people regarding service provision by local authorities; greater accountability of local authorities and other public bodies, including greater opportunities for councillors to raise issues of concern to constituents; greater involvement of citizens in managing services, right up to administrative devolvement of service management. Unlock Democracy welcomes these proposals. However we regret that the white paper does not go further in devolving power to citizens and communities. Unlock Democracy 6 Cynthia Street, London N1 9JF Tel.: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) info@unlockdemocracy.org.uk

2 Perhaps inevitably Strong and Prosperous Communities failed to live up to the Double Devolution hype; it seems to confuse greater choice with greater power. If its aim is to inform, consult, involve and devolve (para 2.7) then it is significant that devolution comes last. 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. One of the strengths of the white paper is the way it highlights best practice from councils across the country. It demonstrates how both councils as a whole and individual councillors can better use the powers that they already have to engage with their communities and provide local leadership. For example it highlights the way in which some councils have embraced the idea of community petitions and set up petition committees to encourage and respond to local concerns. While there is nothing to prevent all councils from doing this, neither are they currently required to do so, and the white paper outlines a framework for councils to adopt. However those proposals that do go further, such as involving citizens directly in service design, are inevitably constrained by concerns about cost effectiveness. While councils should certainly not ignore the cost implications of what they do, participatory mechanisms, particularly those that engage the most excluded do tend to be more expensive that officers simply taking a decision. The white paper encourages councils to use these mechanisms but without additional resources it is unlikely that they will do so. There are significant reforms in this white paper that we welcome but we are concerned that it advocates consultation and choice in public service delivery rather than devolution of power. In particular it fails to empower citizens to set the agenda and take action themselves. We hope that any Bill that follows in the Queen s Speech will go further and encourage councils to adopt the mechanism laid out in the Sustainable Communities Bill for bottom up democracy. What the white paper does 1. Empower individual Councillors The Community Call for Action (CCfA) measure outlined in chapter 2 is one of the key proposals in the white paper. It builds on the existing proposals in the Police and Justice Bill which is currently going through parliament. 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

3 means that a council cannot simply drop an issue and that individual councillors can be far more effective at holding the Executive to account. This is one most significant proposals in the white paper in terms of empowering communities and is certainly welcome, but 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. However it 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 an intermediary. 2. Improves the information available to citizens One of the key elements running through the white paper is providing good accessible information on how to access local services and how they are performing. Accurate information is essential for individuals to hold government, at any level, to account so we welcome any initiative that supports this. What is not clear however is how far, if it all, this will apply to the quango state. A recent study of local government in Burnley and Harrogate carried out by Liverpool

4 University on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust 1 found that over 30 different organisations, many of them quangos, had some role in local governance. Understandably, residents are often confused about which agencies are responsible for which services. They are not clear about who should be held accountable, or about who are the local democratically chosen leaders. Improving the information that citizens have about how they are governed is an essential first step in increasing accountability but this will only be truly effective if it applies to quangos as well as local authorities and strategic partnerships. 3. Proposes reforms to Council structures Following on from the changes in the Local Government Act 2000 the government is now proposing that all councils should adopt a strong leadership model and in particular make terms of office more consistent. This would mean all councils choosing from one of 3 models: 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. This will mean that all 318 councils with leader and cabinet executives will have to adopt new executive arrangements. Councils will be able to opt for either of the directly elected options without a referendum although local people will still be able to petition for a Mayor. However it is not clear from the white paper how the directly elected executive model would work in practice. We await further details. Simplifying terms of office would certainly make it easier for communities to understand how they are governed and will help Councils to better plan and manage strategic issues. However this will only work if councillors are also elected on 4 year terms. A Council leader elected on a 4 year term where the political balance of the Council is potentially changing each year is not going to be able to function effectively and definitely won t be able to provide strong leadership. It is also proposed that all councils should move to whole council elections. 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. 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. 1 See

5 Perhaps more controversially the white paper also proposes that councils should move to single member wards. This would end team working within wards and could potentially isolate some councillors and make it 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 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. The white paper also reopens the issue of two-tier governance and invites authorities to become unitary. It is important to recognise, as the white paper does, that there is not one solution that is suitable for all areas. There are strong arguments in favour of moving to unitary authorities, where it is supported by the local community, but is essential that power is devolved downwards and not taken even further away from the people. Where there is little local support for a unitary authority the white paper proposes reviewing governance arrangements to reduce the risks of confusion, duplication and inefficiency. We would certainly welcome these proposals and would hope that this would also include a review of how the different tiers of local governance engage with local communities. In addition to strengthening leadership and the executive of councils the white paper proposes increasing the powers and role of the overview and scrutiny committees. Currently they can carry out an investigation into any issue of importance to the local area and to compel Executive Members and Council Officers to attend. Under the new proposals service providers (other than the police who are subject to separate scrutiny procedures) are compelled not just to co-operate but to either appear before the committee or provide the necessary information within 20 days. The white paper also proposes that at the full council level authorities should focus overview and scrutiny on more strategic issues such as Sustainable Communities strategies. Improving the scrutiny functions of councils is an essential counterbalance to the strengthening of the executive functions of councils. However as mentioned above the real test of how effective this will be is whether these provisions also apply to quangos in addition to PCTs and NHS bodies. If councils were able to investigate the work of quangos this would be a significant step forward in democratic accountability. 4. Gives Councils additional powers to pass byelaws One of the key proposals in the white paper is to end the Secretary of States role in confirming byelaws. 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. 5. Removes obstacles to setting up Parish Councils

6 One of the main devolutionary powers in the white paper relates to the creation of parish councils. 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. 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 white paper proposes that this process should be simplified and the decision making power should be devolved 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. 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 white paper 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. 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. 6. Improving participation and engagement with local government We agree with the Government s analysis that if democratic representatives are to command the confidence of their communities then they need to reflect the diversity of their local communities. Groups that are under-represented are more likely to believe that their perspectives are overlooked and disengage from the democratic process. Crucially the white paper recognises the problems that local political parties face in recruiting candidates to stand for local government. While we may argue that local government should have more powers than is currently the case, it still carries out important functions and needs good quality councillors to be both effective and legitimate.

7 The white paper calls for the creation of an independent review of the incentives and barriers to serving on councils. This is certainly to be welcomed. It is important to recognise that although councillors can now get time off work to attend meetings this is a relatively small part of what a councillor does. There is little support for the casework, campaigning and community engagement roles that councillors carry out and which this white paper seeks to encourage. We also support the proposals to reaffirm the importance of councillors role as democratic champions. The white paper calls for a clearly defined role for local councillors in championing the interests of their communities; greater diversity of councillors, making them more representative of their community; capacity-building and support for councillors to take on their enhanced role. These are very welcome initiatives but again what it fails to do is increase the powers that councillors have to act. Even if they become democratic champions as envisioned it will be in relatively narrow administrative terms. This is certainly a move in the right direction but it will not change the balance of power within society from central government to local. What the white paper fails to do While there are a number of policies and initiatives that Unlock Democracy welcomes and supports we feel that in its present form the white paper 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. The White Paper contains little or nothing about the devolution of decisionmaking 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) 2 and 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. 3 2 The one possible exception to this relates to the extension of tenant management schemes 3 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.

8 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. This is in stark contrast to the Sustainable Communities Bill being promoted by Unlock Democracy 4 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. The Sustainable Communities Bill is a Private Members Bill sponsored by Julia Golsdworthy 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 4 In conjunction with Local Works and over 70 other national organisations

9 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 jobs 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

10 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. The Sustainable Communities Bill is currently supported by 354 MPs over half the House of Commons. We urge the government to incorporate this mechanism into the any Local Government Bill they bring forward in the Queens Speech. For more information on the Sustainable Communities Bill please contact Ron Bailey at ron.bailey@unlockdemocracy.org.uk or on

11 Appendix Summary of key chapters and proposals Responsive services and empowered communities (chapter 2) A community call for action enabling citizens to address serious or persistent problems across all local public services; Reform of parish councils so that District and Unitary councils can create them, they can exist in London, quality parish councils get a power of wellbeing but councils can choose to have an alternative form of community governance; Encouraging neighbourhood management, community ownership and management of assets Effective, accountable and responsive local government (chapter 3) Bids invited from councils for unitary status and for pathfinders on two tier working arrangements; Councils required to adopt one of three political management arrangements (directly-elected mayor, directly-elected executive or indirectly-elected leader for four-year terms) Localised code of conduct for councillors with revised standards board role with greater freedom over councillors speaking and voting on local planning and licensing issues; Independent review of incentives and barriers to becoming a councillor and measures to promote more diverse and representative councillors; Strengthened council overview and scrutiny powers, devolution to councils of bye-laws, fixed penalty notice powers and whole council elections (which could lead to single-member wards) Strong cities, strategic regions (chapter 4) A sub-national review of economic development and regeneration looking at where powers should sit, feeding into Comprehensive Spending Review 2007; Reform of Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs) with stronger powers to regulate bus services; Work to develop multi area agreements (MAAs) to support effective collaboration at the larger city-region level (but this need not only apply to cities) using the principles on which LAAs are based; Encourage stronger leadership, including elected mayors where there is local support. Local government as strategic leader and place-shaper (chapter 5)

12 A new duty for upper-tier councils to prepare LAAs, and a duty for partners in the agreement to co-operate and have regard to LAA targets; Strengthened LSPs with council leaders expected to play a lead role; New health and wellbeing statutory partnerships, greater involvement of the voluntary and community sector and duties and guidance around sustainable community strategies. New Performance Framework (chapter 6) National outcomes to reflect priorities with progress on national outcomes to be measured against a core set of 200 indicators and a maximum of 35 targets with 18 DfES targets on early years and performance An annual Comprehensive Area Assessment, replacing Comprehensive Performance Assessment, Joint Area Reviews, Annual Performance Assessment and Social Services star rating by March 2009 with the Audit Commission acting as gatekeeper on inspection. Poor performance to be tackled through a sector-led approach with fall back powers for the Secretary of State to intervene. Efficiency- transforming local services (chapter 7) Ambitious efficiency gains expected over the next few years To be achieved through collaboration across the public sector and greater competition in local government service markets Expectation that three year budgets for councils will mean three year council tax projections and three year agreements with the voluntary and community sector Community cohesion (chapter 8) Community cohesion should be appropriately embedded in the new performance framework, LSPs and the priorities of LAAs with tackling extremism becoming core business The Commission on Integration and Cohesion will produce more detailed plans on this issue when it reports next year