Demanding
Devolution
A local Liberal Democrat vision
Spring 2015
This booklet has been produced by the Liberal Democrat Group in the
Local Government Association.
Information and opinions offered in the booklet are personal to the
authors and are not necessarily either Liberal Democrat Party policy or the
views of the Liberal Democrat Group in the Local Government
Association
Demanding Devolution
Contents
1. Foreword
Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
p3
2. Introduction
Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Leader, LGA Liberal Democrats
p5
3. Houses, Jobs and Health - we have the answers
Cllr Ruth Dombey
Leader, Sutton Borough Council
p8
4. Reconnecting Communities
Cllr Jeremy Rowe
Deputy Leader, Cornwall Council
p11
5. Guaranteeing a good education
Cllr Simon Galton
Group Leader, Leicestershire County Council
p14
6. Dismantle the centre - make real change happen
Cllr Keith House
Leader, Eastleigh Borough Council
p17
7. Devolution that we can see
Cllr Janet Battye
Group Leader, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
p20
8. The opportunity is here and now
Cllr Sue Derbyshire
Leader, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
p23
1
Demanding Devolution
9. Pulling together in conurbations
Cllr Richard Kemp CBE
Group Leader, Liverpool City Council
p26
10. Two-tier devolution - let’s get on with it
Cllr Chris White
Group Leader, St Albans DC and councillor, Herts CC
p30
2
Demanding Devolution
Foreword
Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP
Leader of the Liberal Democrats
Taking power away from the stuffy corridors of
Whitehall and Westminster and giving it to the communities, villages, towns,
cities, counties, regions and nations that make up the UK has rightly long
been at the heart of Liberal Democrat - and indeed our predecessor parties’ policies and ideals. Unlike the Labour and Conservative parties our instincts
fundamentally lie on the side of taking power away from the centre and
dispersing it. We know that the heavy hand of the centre is in many ways illequipped compared to local government to deliver the best outcomes for
local communities.
In Government during this parliament we have sought to drive forward our
agenda of devolution through measures such as the Wales Bill 2014, the
Smith Commission, the Localism Act 2011 - which introduced the general
power of competence, LEPs, TIFs, retention of Business Rates, the community
right to buy and our programme of City Deals. This is a record of which we
can and should be proud. But we also know we must do more; as our last
five years in Government has strengthened, not undermined, our belief that
where power lies in this country can and must be devolved further in order
to help build a stronger economy in a fairer society enabling everybody to get
on in life.
So as a party it is right that we redouble our efforts to ensure that we are at
the forefront of the debate about how we can go further and exactly how
this should happen. And for that reason I whole-heartedly welcome the work
of this pamphlet. Our local government leaders have shown what they can
already do with the powers they have – often by stretching most impressively
those powers to their current limits and ensuring that scarce resources are
used to maximum impact. Learning about what those same leaders now
want to do with more powers is deeply inspiring.
3
Demanding Devolution
From Sutton to Stockport and from Cornwall to Calderdale it is Liberal
Democrats setting the terms of the debate. We all agree that “no one size fits
all” and that instead different areas have different priorities and ideas of
what works for them. Our policy of “Devolution on Demand” rightly
encourages this, and it is clear that Liberal Democrat local government
leaders are set to take full advantage of it.
I am confident that the argument for greatly increased and enhanced
devolution, up to and certainly including meaningful fiscal devolution, is
being won. The world may now be more globalised than ever, but at the
same time there has never been greater demand for Government to be
responsive to people’s needs and to deliver public services in a flexible
manner at the local level. The next Government, of whatever political
composition, will rightly be forced to confront head-on questions about how
power can be made more answerable to local communities and I have every
reason to believe that this will inevitably lead to increased debate and
consideration of exactly the kinds of issues and ideas raised in these pages.
This booklet puts the Liberal Democrats on the front foot to meet those
challenges head on. I hope you enjoy reading it and - even more importantly
– one day soon get to implement many of the ideas in your area.
4
Demanding Devolution
Introduction
Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Leader, LGA Liberal Democrats
Devolution is Liberal Democrat territory. Breaking up central bureaucracies
and elites, passing power out and down, away from the centre and to the
communities and individuals subject to their decisions is the reason many of
us came into politics.
The referendum in Scotland fanned the embers of disquiet and
dissatisfaction with Westminster politics and led the wider public, not just
Liberal Democrats, to ask themselves what powers they want the UK
Government to hold over them. Since then we have welcomed the other two
major parties move into our territory and the government has reached
bespoke devolution agreements in Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire
with others reported to be in the pipeline.
The LGA Liberal Democrats want our councillors and council groups to have a
strong voice as things progress in this area. We already have a sound party
policy, ‘Devolution on Demand’, which proposes an act of parliament to
enable local areas to come forward with their own demands for new powers.
Quite rightly this policy is based on the principle that no one size fits all and
that it should be for each local area to decide what structures and mix of
powers they wish to take on.
However our duty to this cause as Liberal Democrats should not stop at an
act of parliament inviting proposals. We owe it to all those that have worked
for this opportunity to seize it - to drive it and to shape it.
The aim of this booklet is therefore to give local Lib Dems in different areas
an opportunity to set out what would make a difference to their areas, what
they would demand for their communities and also to bring out common
themes to Liberal Democrat views on devolution.
5
Demanding Devolution
The first few articles in this book set out some of our group leaders’
ambitions for their area. We have Ruth Dombey, Council Leader in Sutton,
explaining how local government has the answers to some of the most
important issues facing the residents of her borough – health, housing and
getting a job. Then there is Jeremy Rowe, Deputy Leader of Cornwall
explaining how they want to reconnect communities in Cornwall by using
powers to invest in transport and renewable energy whilst also using stamp
duty raised in the sale of second homes to build affordable homes.
Simon Galton argues that establishing a strong oversight role for local
authorities in education would allow Leicestershire to tackle some of the
local issues that pupils and parents have with their schools.
Keith House sets out what a truly independent local government should look
like, showing how his own borough of Eastleigh could save millions of pounds
and improve outcomes by joining up services and taking responsibility for its
own finances.
These first few articles show the extent of ambition within our council groups
to deliver whole swathes of public service at a more local, joined up level and
to take responsibility for their own finances.
Labour always worry about the ‘postcode lottery’ of decentralising public
services whilst the Conservatives always assume that releasing local finances
from the grip of a central treasury will mean marauding ‘leftie’ councils
taxing everything that moves or a council going bust. These articles show that
local Lib Dems believe these assumptions to be unfounded – that proper
independence means you have local solutions that address the specific local
problems, ensuring services are delivered and outcomes improved much
more efficiently and of course, more cheaply.
The latter half of the booklet looks at democracy and the governance
structures that Liberal Democrats would like to see. If new powers are to be
devolved down then they need to be to bodies that are sufficiently
democratic and accountable to the people. In these articles our leaders
describe how they see this being achieved in their local areas.
6
Demanding Devolution
Sue Derbyshire, Leader of Stockport, talks about what has been achieved
through the recent Greater Manchester devolution agreement and of course
the introduction of a mayor that made most of the headlines. She urges
proponents of devolution to worry less about the governance structures and
more about what can be achieved for local residents, pointing out that
ambitious devolution may actually lead to popular demand for the sort of
democratic reform Liberal Democrats care about once people understand
that local politicians really can make a difference to people’s lives.
Janet Battye, the Group Leader of Calderdale calls for devolution demands to
be from the bottom up, making clear her view that any plans should take the
people with them and be directly accountable to them. This means getting
things done and being seen to be doing so.
Richard Kemp then gives us his view on the importance of the conurbation
level using his own patch, Merseyside, as a prime example. He argues that
where a conurbation level strategic body is set up there must be some level
of proportional representation whilst Chris White debunks the theory that
devolution to rural areas requires local government reorganisation.
These latter two articles touch on what I think is another important aspect of
lib dem devolution – fairness. This means ensuring that, whilst there will
always be front-runners, no-one is left behind in the process of devolution.
For Richard Kemp this means that financial freedoms must come with a
mechanism to redistribute from areas well placed to benefit to those less so.
For Chris White it means ensuring that, whilst all the attention is currently on
city regions and metropolitan areas, counties and rural areas should not be
excluded from the process.
This collection of articles shows that devolution will mean different things in
different areas – one size does not fit all and any projects that seek to carve
up the country into neat little sections with the same powers are doomed to
fail. That is the sentiment driving our ‘devolution on demand’ policy.
However, whilst we may not all agree on how devolution should be realised, I
think Lib Dems can agree on what we want devolution to look like ambitious, democratic and fair. That is the local Liberal Democrat vision of
devolution and that is what we should be fighting for on the doorstep, in the
council chamber and in Westminster.
7
Demanding Devolution
Houses, Jobs & Health – we
have the answers
Cllr Ruth Dombey
Leader, Sutton Borough Council
People living in Sutton have high expectations about
how they should be involved in local decision making. For nearly three
decades the Lib Dems have been encouraging them to set up residents
groups, tenants associations and friends of parks and heritage buildings so
they can represent their local residents and have a strong say in what is going
on. All these groups have a formal place on our Local (neighbourhood)
Committees so they can help us shape their local area.
Now we’ve gone further. A successful £1.4 million bid for funds to redesign
one of our district centres was handed over to residents who formed a
Delivery Group to design and oversee the development. The Council was on
hand for technical advice and support.
We’re piloting Community Commissioning and recently passed the first stage
of a £3.6 million project to develop the natural wildlife and habitats and
promote the heritage of one of our local parks. Local residents helped us
design and shape the bid - so much so that one of the criteria to consult with
local residents was removed by the funders because it was clear that the bid
was coming from the residents themselves.
But we could be doing so much more and it is frustrating to see how slowly
the machinery of central government grinds along before it admits that the
long term problems in health, housing and welfare are all areas where local
government can make a substantial positive impact.
There are people navigating their way through the complexity of London’s
jobs market and enduring a confusing array of central employment and skills
programmes, when we know that local schemes which bring together
councils, businesses and voluntary sector and training providers consistently
outperform national schemes.
8
Demanding Devolution
Boroughs like Sutton are running locally led programmes which are getting
over 30% of their clients back into work - where the Work Programme
struggles to get above single figures.
Local government can help get people back into the jobs market and off
welfare, encourage growth and investment in jobs and greater powers to
achieve this can only benefit government and the UK as a whole.
Investment in infrastructure is also a vital part in promoting economic growth
in local areas – whether this is transport improvements featuring at the core
of many devolution proposals or tackling the desperate need across many
parts of the country for affordable housing.
Government housing interventions have yet to sufficiently stimulate the
necessary house building. In Sutton we have taken advantage of recent
reforms to the housing finance system which allow greater borrowing by
councils to fund the building of social housing. We’re also setting up our own
Development Company which will be able to acquire sites, enter into joint
ventures with developers, deliver private for rent or sale, social housing etc,
all with a view to delivering the type of housing to meet local need at prices
people can afford.
But we could do much more and that is why Sutton is calling on government
to devolve more funding and powers to local authorities. Removing the
Treasury cap on borrowing will allow councils to borrow prudently against
their assets. Devolving property taxation (including business rates) to local
government - to both set the appropriate level and retain the receipts - will
allow us greater freedoms and flexibilities to stimulate economic growth and
fund our own housing and employment schemes. Handing over large chunks
of the welfare budget will allow us to help some people off welfare and
better support the people most in need.
But the biggest prize is the integration of health and social care. The Better
Care Fund has made a start but the funding is still dominated by the
problems in A&E instead of addressing the need to prevent people needing
hospital care as well as getting them out of hospital as quickly as possible.
9
Demanding Devolution
We urgently need wide ranging
investment in social care if we are
to solve the problem. Throwing
more billions at the NHS will not
fix the problems in our hospitals.
The answer is to strengthen the
successful partnership working
between local councils and the
CCGs and allow the Health and
Wellbeing Boards to reshape the
local health system.
There is no clear single vision for what ‘devolution’ to local areas should look
like - nor should there be. All over the country local councils are coming
together to share services, set up subregional partnerships and work more
collaboratively. It looks different in different places - and rightly so.
We know that many people remain resolutely disengaged from politics and
removed from the political process. Local government has an important role
to play in tackling this challenge. Give us the chance and watch us fly.
10
Demanding Devolution
Reconnecting communities –
lasting solutions for Cornwall
Cllr Jeremy Rowe
Deputy Leader, Cornwall Council
Living in and representing the beautiful area of North Cornwall, I am
undeniably biased in my view that Cornwall is the very best place in the
country to live. However, despite its many strengths, Cornwall presents
some very real challenges for those living here. Our recent residents’ survey
gave us a very clear message of the things that matter most to local people affordable housing, wage levels, job prospects, public transport and road
repairs.
With house prices in Cornwall, fuelled by competing uses such as demand for
holiday and second homes, now amongst the highest in the UK and salary
levels amongst the lowest, home ownership is beyond the reach of many in
Cornwall. Despite recent growth in Cornwall’s economy we are still beset by
low earnings and low Gross Value Added on one side and high house prices,
high levels of fuel poverty, the highest water bills in the UK and high transport
costs on the other. Connectivity is critical to Cornwall, both within our
predominantly rural county where 70% of people live outside of main
settlements and with the rest of the UK - road, rail, air, sea and digital links are
the arteries of our economy.
Our population is amongst the fastest growing areas in the UK with
increasing pressure on care and support services from a growing ageing
population. In some neighbourhoods over a quarter of the working age
population are claiming out of work benefits. These areas suffer from high
levels of worklessness, low educational achievement and lower life expectancy
which the council and its partners are determined to address. Improving skill
levels and training opportunities is vital. Although we have seen
improvements, over a fifth of the economically active population have no
qualifications.
11
Demanding Devolution
But we have some great
opportunities too. Our natural
resources and geology give us an
amazing chance to lead on the
development and deployment of
renewable technology including
wind, wave and geothermal power.
We are leading the way in delivering
superfast broadband, and have been
awarded millions of pounds of
European funding over the next six
years.
It is these issues that form the focus of our call for devolution of powers and
freedoms from central government that would enable us to take control of our
own affairs. We understand Cornwall, how it works, our challenges and
opportunities. We are facing unprecedented financial challenges, with the
need to save £196m over the next four years. This means we need to do
things in a different way if we want to provide high quality services to the
people of Cornwall. We want to create a sustainable Cornwall, which is
prosperous, resilient and resourceful with strong communities where the
most vulnerable are protected.
Cornwall has a proud history of standing up and fighting for what it believes
in and we are determined to take advantage of this moment and shape our
own history.
Our ‘Case for Cornwall’ focuses on the following areas:
Public transport and connectivity – powers to decentralise bus regulation
and retaining a share of fuel duty to maintain Cornwall’s roads
Housing – devolution of Homes and Communities Agency powers and land
holdings, managing the challenges caused by high density of second homes
and retaining a proportion of stamp duty to invest in affordable housing
Health and social care – greater integration of health and social care
commissioning and provision
12
Demanding Devolution
Energy - Government investment in geothermal technology, greater control
over grid investment and local discretion and influence over energy policy
Public sector efficiency – devolved delivery of funding and investment
streams, powers to pool and reinvest capital receipts from the public sector
estate, development of an earnback model and greater alignment of public
sector budgets
Cornwall provides the opportunity to develop a devolution deal which will
provide a model for other areas. Our geography, peripherality, shared
organisational boundaries and sense of place and identity underline why
devolution works for Cornwall.
We want to work with the government to develop a governance model
incorporating Cornwall Council and Cornish partners which will strengthen
local accountability, and ensure democratic decision making. We want to
achieve greater transparency to reconnect communities with public services
and most importantly, have the ability to drive the improvements to
infrastructure, jobs and housing which Cornwall both needs and deserves.
13
Demanding Devolution
Guaranteeing a good education
Cllr Simon Galton
Group Leader, Leicestershire County Council
When the coalition put through the Academies Act it
was billed as a decentralisation. Turning community
schools into academies would take powers from the local authority and give
them to the schools themselves, and theoretically the local communities.
In practice, there was also a large measure of centralisation. Decisions on
schools that used to be made by a council were first given to ministers in
Whitehall and later, when the workload proved too onerous, delegated to
regional school commissioners that had been appointed by central
government - bureaucrats far removed from the communities that they are
supposed to serve.
In Leicestershire the problems of school oversight have led to cross-party
support in the county for a number of powers for local authorities in
education that would free up teachers to teach whilst providing a local
democratic guarantee of standards and access to education.
Guaranteeing school places
A specific problem in Leicestershire is that schools have followed an
unconventional age range pattern where children left primary schools after
year 5, studied at a high school up to year 9 and then study for GCSEs and A
Levels at an upper school. This system was out of step with the rest of the
country, and there was also evidence that the unusual transitions were
negatively affecting standards.
There was a need for change here but without proper oversight of this
process academies have been able to take a unilateral approach to their new
structures which has forced other schools connected with it to follow suit
regardless of their suitability.
It is clear that such a period of transformation would benefit from the local
authority, as a third party accountable to the whole of the local community,
14
Demanding Devolution
taking on a mediating role whilst more control over the schools capital
budget would allow it ensure a fair outcome for all pupils in the area.
Getting pupils to school
Changes to school age ranges caused changes to their catchment areas and
this sparked off a problem with the council’s Home to School Transport
Policy. The policy was to provide students with free transport to their
catchment school.
This policy worked well when the Council set the catchment areas, but now it
was possible for schools to set catchment areas that covered the entire
county, which would make the current policy unaffordable. For fear that an
alternative might trigger a judicial review from an academy the county
adjusted the policy to cover only child’s nearest school, leaving many parents
feeling aggrieved.
It is clear that the local authority should have full discretion over the school
transport policy and have the final say on catchment areas for the purposes
of free transport. If it also had more control over transport policy in general it
would be in an even better position to ensure young people could get to the
school or college of their choosing.
Driving school standards
When the Academy Act was passed, Leicestershire moved swiftly to wind up
a number of school support services including, controversially, its highly
regarded School Improvement Service. This was largely done on the basis
that all schools in the county would soon become academies and the council
no longer had a role in the standard of education they provided.
Our members strongly opposed this council decision at the time and continue
to feel that the local authority should have a role in the improvement of all
schools in the local area. However it is clear that such a role will require both
the power and the funding necessary to perform it. Individual schools and
the chains have the first responsibility but the local authority should be given
the ability to hold all schools to account on their performance.
The Lib Dems in Leicestershire feel that if given the right powers and
oversight over school improvement, catchment areas and age range changes
15
Demanding Devolution
then we’d finally be able to address these problems. At our September
Council meeting, we put forward a motion calling for local government to be
given such powers and responsibilities.
To our surprise, the Tories not only supported our motion, but the Cabinet
lead member for Education even agreed to second it. The experience over
the last four years had led to a cross party view that Councils are better
placed than Whitehall to understand the specific logistical challenges faced
by local schools, and to understand the needs of the communities they
served.
If the government is serious about putting power back in the hands of
communities, part of this must mean devolving these powers back to Local
Authorities, who are far more accessible (and more democratically
accountable) to local communities than remote offices of Whitehall ministers
or appointed schools commissioners.
Thankfully the Liberal Democrats have recognised this and policies devolving
these powers are set to appear in our manifesto. Now it is up to us as a party
to get ourselves elected and ensure they’re enacted!
16
Demanding Devolution
Dismantle the Centre – Make Real
Change Happen
Cllr Keith House
Leader, Eastleigh Borough Council
Let’s start at the beginning. What are we trying to
achieve with devolution? It’s about local decisions for
local communities reflecting local priorities. These are
not the same in Cornwall as Camden or Carlisle.
So it’s not about decentralisation, which has been the standard UK
government approach to local administration.
Devolution requires local independence, local finance and local
accountability.
It means that any decision that can be taken at a local level should be. And
the centre should not have the power to intervene, undermine and control.
What does this mean for local government? Let’s take the three themes of
independence, finance and accountability.
Independence. This is the fundamental. For decades the centre has told
localities that it, and its professional agencies, know best. They don’t. Local
communities are perfectly capable of rational and sensible decisions given
the freedom to do so. They will typically be cheaper and more joined up. So
a whole swathe of the centre can be dismantled and powers returned to the
people. Most health, education, welfare, justice, housing, environment and
home office functions, let alone culture and sport, can be delivered locally.
Why is welfare administered and controlled nationally? Or probation, if we
want to properly join up with local community safety?
Why have one person, the Secretary of State for Health, theoretically
responsible for every health decision affecting every English citizen, separate
from locally assessed social care, housing and public health need? It is no
wonder we have relatively poor health outcomes, and educational results
that underperform many other leading world economies. And all for
17
Demanding Devolution
Ministers’ fear about a front page of the Daily Mail when a crime is
committed, when a hospital is in crisis, or when a school fails its community.
Finance. Independence needs financial reform. Local government and local
communities should not be cap-in-hand to central government departments
and the Treasury. Local taxes should be retained locally. That applies to
property taxes, like council tax and business rates, but also to those taxes
that local communities consider work for them and charges too. It is no
business of central government to prescribe what and how local taxes and
charges are made. Independent devolved government will take the decisions
it needs to tax and borrow and spend prudentially knowing the responsibility
for that tax burden, and the freedoms achieved to encourage jobs and
investment, will be locally owned.
Independent finance for local government removes the dead hand of the
central state. Most local communities have the ability to raise sufficient
income for their needs, reducing central taxation and reducing the role of UK
government to dealing with exceptional issues of deprivation, temporary
support for structural economic change or disaster relief.
Accountability. Planning of local places
has been undermined by a central
planning regime, with a government
inspector who overturns decisions
made by local people. No other major
democracy centralises decisions in this
way. The ability to direct investment
and to take responsibility locally is
undermined. It is all too easy to blame
someone else. A statutory duty to
meet housing need within genuine
housing market areas, based on a
transparent local assessment would put
responsibility back where it belongs.
Removing quangos that instruct and
decide based on a national template
serves localities poorly. And removing
the local quango state, ‘qaulgos’, or
18
Demanding Devolution
unaccountable governing bodies in health and education would repatriate
real local decision making. Community safety, with its remit for a huge area
tied down in the powers of just one elected official (Police and Crime
Commissioner), could be much better achieved through locally elected
authorities.
Much of this is not new. Much was in place at the end of the 19th Century
and early years of the last century. Much can be learned from local
community decision-making in western Europe and the United States.
But accountability too needs to be reframed in electoral reform that defeats
‘winner take all’ first-past-the-post elections. And it needs confidence and a
‘yes we can’ attitude from local politicians too, prepared to accept
responsibility and solve problems.
In Eastleigh we like to think we have this attitude and that we problem solve
for our community. But with proper local independence we could save
millions of pounds of public money, improve skills, achieve better health
outcomes and give better protection to our environment.
Liberal Democrats should not be afraid to dismantle the centre, taking the
risk and trusting local people. Let us be bold.
19
Demanding Devolution
Devolution that we can see
Cllr Janet Battye
Group Leader, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
In Calderdale, “devolution” may mean two things – first
from national government down to more local
government, but also, secondly, from “big” (unitary) councils down to local
town and parish councils, community groups and neighbourhoods.
At the moment, we seem to be dependent upon decisions being taken in faraway places like Leeds and London, regardless of local views. Calderdale sits
on the edge of “West Yorkshire” adjacent to Greater Manchester (Rochdale),
Lancashire, Bradford and Kirklees. At least the new “Combined Authority” is
called “West Yorkshire” with which many local people can identify, rather
than “Leeds City Region” but it is another faceless large organisation with
limited direct local involvement.
People in Calderdale are interested in getting things done. That means an
ability to take more decisions locally about spending on large infrastructure
such as electrification of the railway line (and purchase of new rolling stock),
superfast Broadband across the whole area (including the whole of the large
rural, moorland areas), sufficient funding for flood resilience and protection
works, and funding for social housing. At the moment, these are worked
through either regional organisations (such as the Combined Authority) or
regional offices of national government. In both cases, it feels as though we
have limited powers of influence. There are detailed plans prepared but
funding and implementation seem complicated and time-consuming.
Similarly, for social and affordable housing, Calderdale Council did a stock
transfer to what started off as a local Housing Association that has developed
and expanded since 2000, became regional, and is now at the point of
becoming more entrepreneurial and commercial. The challenge is to retain
the local “preferred provider” relationship for the benefit of local people
when they may see greater needs and more opportunities elsewhere. A
Community Land Trust is being established in part of Calderdale and this
20
Demanding Devolution
promises well for the future, especially if the positive experience of asset
transfer of land and buildings can be capitalised on. The problem is that
public funding, even for social housing initiatives, is difficult to get access to
when it is administered through national government.
Local people need to see things getting
done – decisions taken on investment
plans, and work done to put the
developments in place. The
Todmorden/Burnley curve has been
rebuilt but trains can’t yet run on it
because there is no rolling stock available
(and apparently signalling has only been
installed in one direction). Design work is
moving ahead slowly on electrification, a
new station in Elland, a third platform at
Halifax and lifts to give access to the far
platform at Hebden Bridge.
Decisions and progress needs to be open, transparent and visible to local
people. Whatever the regional body overseeing larger projects, there needs
to be a direct cross-party democratic relationship with local people, and this
needs to be more than symbolic. Modern technology can help with this as
used by most public bodies nowadays. Local Councils’ Scrutiny Panels and
Committees need to be part of the checks and balances, along with local
people being able to intervene and challenge through measures like petitions
and questions.
At the most local level, “localism” has encouraged more attention to be given
to potential power of communities, not only in asset transfer, but also
Community Rights of Challenge and bidding to run services. We need to learn
from the experience of this to encourage and support more community
action. In Calderdale, we’ve had ward forums for several years, more
community consultation and now a new petition scheme. Three areas are
working on Neighbourhood Plans.
But these opportunities aren’t being taken up by all communities. Less than
half the area has Town and Parish Councils, although there are a number of
21
Demanding Devolution
formally constituted community groups. There needs to be more support and
investment in these. It needs to be made much easier to establish new
groups, and more encouragement for them to set up or takeover important
local services, such as libraries and children’s centres so that, rather than
becoming part of larger groupings, they become more local and able to take
on more power, responsibility and funding.
It is on these foundations that the case for devolution must be based. A truly
bottom up process where the demand for new powers is made, not by
politicians in London or Leeds, but by the communities in Calderdale and
other areas on the basis that it will make a tangible and visible change to the
things they care about such as transport, housing, libraries or protecting their
homes from flooding. Further, demand for new powers must not only come
from our communities and also be accountable to them - through a properly
democratic body with checks, balances and the ability for local people to see
the decision being made and hold those responsible to account for its effects.
22
Demanding Devolution
The opportunity is here and now
Cllr Sue Derbyshire
Leader, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Stockport as part of Greater Manchester (GM) is in the
forefront of devolution within England, we were the
first Combined Authority (CA) and the first to reach a
devolution agreement with Central Government.
The coverage of the deal has of course been dominated by the issue of a GM
Mayor, which was a requirement from the Treasury for substantial
devolution of power. This is I assume because they are a bit simple in
Westminster/Whitehall and need a single point of contact.
However the model outlined in the Devolution Agreement is very far from
reflecting the arrangements in London or the Executive Mayor models in
some councils. The Mayor will be the eleventh person on the Combined
Authority; all strategic decisions will need to be made by two thirds majority
(8). While the Strategic Planning Framework, which we had started before
the Devolution Agreement, needs sign up from all 10 Councils.
Accountability, at least in the first years is through existing councillors within
their own areas and we are looking at how to give this greater transparency
but it needs to be recognised that we will be delivering our outcomes locally
through the councils; this agreement takes powers from Westminster not the
local authorities.
This demonstrates the way GM has worked in the 30 years since the
Metropolitan County Councils were abolished and the then council leaders in
GM decided there was value in working together and formed AGMA
(Association of Greater Manchester Councils) out of which came the
combined authority.
What we have is 30 years of experience of, as 10 independent councils,
seeing where we can agree, how we can overcome disagreements and when
to recognise that for the best interests of our area and residents, working
23
Demanding Devolution
together is a gain not a loss. This did not come easily or overnight and what
works here may not work everywhere.
Despite the popular image of Greater Manchester as a totally Labour area, it
was not so long ago that Labour only led 5 out of the 10 authorities; there
has always been the need to work across the political boundaries. What I do
know is this challenges us to put our actions where our rhetoric has always
been about working for the best interests of our communities.
So has it paid off? GM is the most economically successful region outside of
South East, with a local economy larger than Wales or Northern Ireland. The
Devolution Agreement gives potentially significant powers to the GMCA:
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
Ÿ
£900 million investment over 30 years via the Earnback model.
Franchised bus services.
Increased powers to shape local rail and road policy (inc. motorways).
Commissioning powers for skills spending to train local residents in the
skills they need to access jobs in GM.
Increased powers over business support budgets.
£300 million housing investment fund - more than ten times the amount
we have now.
Power to create statutory spacial plan for GM.
Early years pilot to better prepare young children for school.
Scaling up of existing projects to tackle complex dependency, aiming to
help 50,000 people find work.
Further work on integrated health and social care budgets.
Many of these would have
seemed impossible to even
contemplate a few years ago,
but is not the end of our
ambition. Approximately £22
Billion is spent by the public
sector in GM and we see no
reason why the CA should
not have at least some
influence over all of that. We
as Councillors know our area
24
Demanding Devolution
and our residents far better than any government department. I believe we
can do far better with the resources that are available, and in this time of
austerity, which is not getting any better for the foreseeable future; this is
the only way to protect what we see as the essential outcomes we are trying
to achieve.
Given the challenges facing the public sector and the damage that will be
caused to residents if we fail, it is clear we must take any opportunity to
improve our chances of success.
Ask residents in your area what are their problems and how they think they
could be solved and you may get many answers but I am prepared to bet no
one suggests that what is needed are more politicians.
If devolution works, if residents see that local politicians can make a
difference, that is when we might see a rejuvenation of local democracy and
popular demand for the sort of democratic reforms that we as Liberal
Democrats would like to see.
However the opportunity we have in the here and now is one I never really
expected after over 30 years in local government, we need to grasp it now if
offered.
25
Demanding Devolution
Pulling together in conurbations
Cllr Richard Kemp CBE
Group Leader, Liverpool City Council
110,000 people work in Liverpool City Centre. Of
those just 55,000 live in the administrative area that we know as Liverpool
City Council. If you are one of the 1,650,000 people who live in the Liverpool
City Region it doesn’t matter whether you live inside Liverpool, St Helens,
Sefton, Halton, Wirral or Knowsley; Liverpool is where you come for your big
shop, to go to the theatre, to go to a museum, to take part in big cultural
events etc.
If you read this at or before the Liverpool Spring Conference 2015 think
about the fact that a major facility like the Arena and Conference Centre is
only viable in the city but it needs support from far wider afield. It works
because as well as a conference venue there are shops, museums, hotels and
restaurants in addition to the facility itself.
Perhaps you live in Bootle, you may live in either Sefton or Liverpool councils.
Say you live in Dovecot, You may live in Liverpool or Knowsley. Perhaps you
live in Halewood but, is that Liverpool Halewood or Knowsley Halewood?
The fact is that to most people the administrative boundaries under which
we operate are meaningless. They live where they want to live and work and
enjoy themselves where it is the most convenient for them.
The UK is almost unique in not recognising this. In the rest of the World
almost every conurbation has a big strategic council and smaller delivery
councils. From Istanbul to Mexico City from Paris to New Delhi this is a
standard pattern. Indeed for a few years it was a pattern in the UK. From
councils like Strathclyde and Lothian in Scotland to the six metropolitan
counties of England there was an acceptance that conurbations hung
together and should work and plan together. All this was abolished by the
Tories because of their hatred of the Greater London Council.
26
Demanding Devolution
Clearly conurbations (and similar groupings of county areas) should be given
greater discretion over a whole range of issues. The Liverpool City Region has
a population about the same size as Northern Ireland and a GDP which is
greater. They have a Parliament and we do not. What possible argument can
there be that what is right for Ulster is not right for Liverpool?
What should the conurbations do?
Ÿ Transport
Ÿ Land use planning
Ÿ Economic Development
Ÿ Inward Investment
Ÿ All post 16 provision - university,
education and training
Ÿ Police & Fire
Ÿ Waste Disposal
Ÿ Primary Health Care Planning
Ÿ Benefits for people in working age
These are things which are strategic and which enable planning and delivery
to be done effectively. Liverpool would not go abroad to attract inward
investment. It would be done by one body working on behalf of the whole
area. Roads do not stop at a council’s boundary. Transport systems transport
people across a wide area, training needs to be directed at a range of
opportunities. Primary healthcare needs to be both generic and specialised.
These things can be done by bringing together services at a high enough
levels to benefit from bulk and contiguity.
What should they NOT do. Anything else!
There is no rationale for taking service delivery options from the Unitary
Councils to the Strategic Councils.
Although there are clearly cost benefits to be had by bringing big functions
together, there are financial disbenefits to be caused by creating bigger and
bigger levels of delivery.
How should the City or County Regions be governed? Democratically! The
combined authorities are a useful start in bringing together the councils into
a legally recognised partnership but they have no mandate. No-one has
27
Demanding Devolution
asked the People of the Liverpool City Region their opinion on the long term
future of their area and the big forward looking plans that are needed for it.
Such plans can only come from legitimate political debate culminating in an
election.
I believe that new City and County Regions should be governed by new
Assemblies on the basis of one member per 50,000 electors. These
assemblies would be either:
Elected by the single transferable vote mechanism across the area; or
Based on the proportions achieved by the Parties across the region in the
immediately preceding Unitary and/or upper tier elections.
The leadership of the region should be provided on the Leader/Cabinet
system.
The region will replace any Combined authorities, Fire, Waste Disposal and
Transport Authorities and will eliminate the posts of Police Commissioners.
In most parts of the country the mayoral system has not delivered the goods
in terms of enhanced performance or better services. In Liverpool there is
strong evidence that the opposite is the case.
Lastly let us shoot the elephant in the room. Everything I have said in this
article is meaningless unless there is an enhanced level of fiscal devolution.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. We will continue to dance to the tune
of Whitehall mandarins unless we control much more of our own income and
expenditure.
We should therefore resolve to review methods of local taxation to allow
them to include the tax take for a) all National None Domestic Rates and b) a
proportion, to be established, of VAT.
City and County Regions will also be allowed to levy local taxes to raise up to
5% of their budget with appropriate local measures to allow for local costs
and spending pressures.
We would need to establish a ‘Local Funding Commission’ to consider in
greater detail these options and to establish a fair funding mechanism to
28
Demanding Devolution
ensure that poorer areas will not lose out. It is clear that the conurbation
level would help to smooth a significant amount of the inequality within its
boundaries but we will still need a mechanism that prevents those areas with
less of an ability to grow their economy and their taxbase to be left behind.
There are good examples in other countries of how this could be achieved
without removing each area’s incentive to invest in their area.
When our country was truly great it was because all parts of the UK
contributed. The ship builders of the Clyde; the wool millers of Yorkshire, the
cotton weavers of Lancashire, the manufacturing giants of the Midlands were
every bit as important as London and the South East. To be great we must all
be great – our power will come by harnessing the strengths and
opportunities of all parts of the country and not be a trickle down from one
part.
29
Demanding Devolution
Two-tier devolution – let’s get on
with it
Cllr Chris White
Group Leader, St Albans DC and councillor, Herts CC
I have teased people in the past with a simple example
set of questions. There is a place in England with the
following characteristics:
Ÿ It has a population of around 1.1 million, slightly less than Estonia but
bigger than Malta and Luxembourg combined
Ÿ It has a University
Ÿ It has a number of science based world class industries
Ÿ It has an Anglican Cathedral
Ÿ It has access to two international airports
Ÿ It has its own local authority.
Question: Should it have the devolved powers needed to run its own affairs?
Liberal Democrat audiences always say yes. When asked to guess where it is
they suggest Birmingham (actually slightly smaller in population terms) or
Manchester (half the size). In fact it is Hertfordshire (of course).
The Government has begun to recognise the importance of cities in terms of
growth and therefore in terms of devolution. Cities are where many people
work and which are efficient and compact. So invest in them – especially if
the decisions about where and how to invest are taken locally – and we all
benefit.
There is nothing wrong with this agenda. But the idea is incomplete. The LGA
set up an Independent Commission on Economic Growth and the Future of
Public Services in Non-Metropolitan England which concluded, perhaps
surprisingly, that non-metropolitan areas (the shires, smaller cities, rural and
suburban areas) produce the majority of England’s growth. Hertfordshire,
Buckinghamshire and Surrey, for instance, have Gross Value Added per fulltime employee at levels similar to Greater London – no other parts of
England, including major conurbations, are in this category.
30
Demanding Devolution
The report also – very significantly
– warns that skills shortages are a
problem and that transport
infrastructure is stretched. In
other words, some of these nonmetropolitan areas may well be
prosperous but are not going to
remain that way without public
sector intervention to revamp the
human and physical infrastructure.
So Hertfordshire, and many areas like it, needs devolved decision-making just
as much as any city or city region. But the thrust of past and present
governments has tended to ignore this and shape the structures for
devolution around the needs and geography of former metropolitan
counties.
Despite being in opposition in Hertfordshire, and despite being exasperated
by the centralising tendency of the current Conservative administration, I
find the case for my own county council to pick up devolved functions over
skills, education and transport overwhelming. Moreover, it requires no new
structures, nor meetings in figuratively smoke-filled rooms nor indeed a
directly elected mayor. There is a council already up and running.
There would need to be reform, however. The current council is controlled
by the Conservatives but less than 50% of the electorate voted for them. The
current centralisation tendency would be impossible if the seats reflected
how people had voted. More importantly, we know from Rotherham,
Newham and too many other places, the dangers of an ineffective
opposition. People generally don’t vote for a one-party state. It’s just that
our electoral system in many areas effectively ignores people who vote the
wrong way. So STV needs to be introduced to local government elections as
soon as possible.
The second issue is the districts. People often breezily say that devolution of
substantial powers requires local government to be tidied up and made more
efficient, by which they mean (these days) the creation of unitary counties.
31
Demanding Devolution
In cash terms, unitary counties would be much cheaper. In fact it would be
even cheaper to have a single county covering all of England. But that is
madness.
Some of the supposedly efficient unitary authorities set up over the last
decade have become hopelessly remote. Nor are they finding it easy to
attract candidates for election: would you really want to stand for election if
the council offices were fifty miles away?
Local government reorganisation is not a necessary or even desirable
condition for devolution to the top tier. But improved joint working is. A
county council with a massively increased budget and powers is likely to
appear overbearing to the next tier down, especially given the joint interest
in some of the powers likely to be devolved.
Some formalisation – even the creation of a district council senate to approve
decisions made by the county council in relation to its new powers – could be
an interesting and productive option.
But let’s get on with it.
32
Demanding Devolution
Want to
kick-start
the debate
in your area?
Go to the LGA devolution page for the latest
thinking and resources to help you make the
case in your community
local.gov.uk/devolution
Published March 2015 by the Local Government Association Liberal Democrat Group, 6th Floor,
Local Government House, Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ