Devolution to and within cities

The devolution agenda in England appears to have an element of cross party consensus, at least on the surface in relation to the need for something to change, even if the detail is somewhat lacking. The discussion to date appears to be dominated by central government, local authorities and business, with the emphasis very much on what the government wants, with everyone else running around to catch up. It’s also a debate that seems to be focused on structures rather than resources and responsibilities, as is often the way with public sector change. The concept is debated without the detail, when we all know “the devil is in the detail”. The whole debate is also being conducted against a backdrop of austerity measures, where local government funding is being severely cut and public services decimated. So one has to ask the question whether or not devolution is just an opportunity for government to shift the burden of cuts and service delivery to local councils, or whether it is really responding to an agenda about democratic accountability and improving local services. I guess it’s a bit of both?

With the establishment of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP) and talk of Combined Authorities the discussion, at least in Bristol, seems to centre around business and growth, with the business community working alongside the public sector to create their vision for the growth and prosperity of an area. It’s been about marketing the city region, saying how fantastic we are, quoting GDP and GVA figures to show what a strong economy we have and talking about all the brilliant local businesses we have in all the right sectors. All very important of course, but sadly lacking in terms of any reference to communities, poverty and inequalities. In our rush to say what a brilliant place the Bristol city region is, we forget about what’s important and all too often lack any connection with local people and local needs.

George Ferguson, in a presentation to the community and voluntary sector in Bristol described devolution as “local freedom” and made reference to the Charter for Local Freedom. The Charter, whilst based on the principles of prosperity, equality and democracy, comes across primarily as an economic vision, with the focus on strengthening local economies and getting people into jobs in order to save public money. However, it also has a strong vein running through it about local democracy, trusting people to make the right choices, empowering communities and neighbourhoods, with the decisions taken at the most appropriate level. This was a key theme to emerge from the debate at the VOSCUR meeting in Bristol where there was a real sense that devolution needed to be about devolution within cities not just to cities. One of the main voices missing in the debate is that of the community and voluntary sector and there was a call from members of the panel for a strong shared vision to emerge from the sector and the need for community leadership, to challenge the business focused vision that is firmly in place through the LEPs.

Throughout the debate it was clear that there was a real emphasis on the need for civil society to take back control of this agenda and stop it being about reaction to a centrally imposed system or approach. If the debate about devolution is really about local freedom, then the power to decide locally what are the best structures and the required resources is absolutely fundamental to its success. A one size fits all approach, imposed by the centre on local councils desperate to win out in competitive funding regimes, is not the answer. An approach founded on proper engagement of local people, beyond business and politicians, based on local need and local circumstances would undoubtedly work better, but is in itself a real challenge for central government. For government to not only devolve decision making and resources, but also decisions about structures, it has to have a sense that the local area can be trusted and that it will come up with something that works. Sadly, this doesn’t often seem to be the foundation of the relationship between our different levels of government at the moment, often for justifiable reasons.

The devolution agenda is an opportunity to do something different. It’s an opportunity for public, private and voluntary and community sectors to put together a local proposal that works for the city region. There is no central blueprint, what works in Manchester won’t necessarily work in Bristol. The trick is for Bristol, and other areas, to put forward those proposals, collaboratively, through proper engagement and discussion, and ensure that what Bristol gets is best for Bristol.  The key for the voluntary and community sector is to ensure they are a central part of the discussion, that they are at the table when the decisions are taken and that they have a shared vision and strong leadership to ensure their voice is heard. At the moment, it feels like we are a long way from this shared vision and time is running out.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Devolution to and within cities

  1. An interesting perspective and well argued. From a place point of view we could also cite moves by some Councils to have total coverage of neighbourhood plans in lieu of a Local Plan as an attempt to devolve planning powers to communities.

    Like

  2. Thanks for your comments Ian. There was more discussion about role of neighbourhood partnerships and parish councils, as formal structures around which plans, decisions and action could be taken, ie. devolution to the truly local level.

    Like

    • You need to get people to buy-in to the concepts of Neighbourhood Partnerships. Although I sometimes attend mine, it’s usually the same faces you see at other meetings and not supported by the wider community. If present day is anything to go by, you cannot depend on the result of any consultation as these seem to be basically ignored, especially if they don’t match what the business community want. Just imagine an “edgy” city like Bristol deciding we prefer our green spaces or a “chilled out” attitude to life, what chance those opinions having of being taken up. The whole decision on devolution seems to have been rushed to justify the extra powers given to the Scots. Before it comes here the citizens of Bristol should have their say!

      Like

      • Paul, yes agree on need for wider engagement/consultation, but it does have to be meaningful. I think there is a lot of scope for Neighbourhood Partnerships but they have to be more formally structured – the equivalent of urban parishes maybe, democratically elected and with powers and resource devolved. There’s plenty to discuss on the concept of devolution but as you say the process seems to be rushed to respond to a government agenda.

        Like

  3. Brilliant article, this will work as long as all parties do what they say, and don’t just make lots of false claims, and the usual smoke and mirror, statements which shows they are just focused on staying in power and not about doing the job !!! Something I witnessed first hand last week, in a public meeting…

    Like

    • Thanks Roger, it is hard to work your way through the speeches and comments to work out what actually is possible and likely – the whole agenda is rushed and quite possible not particularly well thought out. But there is clear potential to do something differently to benefit the local area – we just need politicians and decision makers brave enough to accept the challenge and devolve to the most appropriate levels.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s