Minutes:
Carolyn Downs provided an overview prior to the discussion. She said that the LGA was asked to produce a composite proposal. The length of the draft had increased significantly as the number of stakeholders involved had grown. In this light, she said that a Board steer on whether the proposal could be made more concise and focused would be particularly useful for officers.
Carolyn emphasised that devolution currently appeared to be happening in a piecemeal way, with authorities not always providing a clear rationale for why it was necessary in their area. She identified a risk that this could cause Central Government to stop some devolution plans from progressing.
Carolyn identified local government capacity, capability and accountabilities as key issues for Central Government. She highlighted that civil servants in several Central Government departments were suggesting that legislation would not be needed to bring devolution about, an argument she strongly disputed.
Cllr Leese agreed on legislation being necessary. He said that three different pieces of legislation were currently being discussed for the Central Manchester deal and many of the desired outcomes could not be achieved without a legal foundation being established.
During the debate which followed, members made the following points:
· Some members saw the LGA peer review process as a means of ensuring capability and capacity. They argued that this should be strengthened and made compulsory. Members saw a role for local government in defining what the capability and capacity tests should be.
· Some members felt the proposed timescale of 2025-26 for devolution was unambitious and would like to see faster progress. However, others emphasised that the desire for a speedy implementation should be balanced against Central Government’s desire for a carefully established and rigorous development process.
· The links between public sector reform and economic growth should be highlighted in making the case for devolution as the two were seen as co-dependent by the public.
· Members emphasised that the LGA should be structured appropriately to support the devolution agenda and saw the LGA reform programme as an opportunity to better align the two.
· While opinion on the effectiveness of different forms of devolved governance varied across the Board, members agreed that the debate should not be limited to the mayoral option. While this approach was advocated by Government because it represented the easy option from a central communication perspective, the LGA should take a neutral line on authorities implementing other devolved leadership models if they considered them more appropriate for their area. The argument should be about whether authorities should be directly accountable rather than who provides that accountability.
· In light of the neutral approach suggested, some members felt that the current LGA proposals could be seen as too prescriptive in specifying particular reforms.
· While governance was seen as an important issue, members emphasised that this question should come towards the end of the devolution process rather than at the beginning.
· Members pointed out that aside from the intellectual argument for devolution, local government needed to better understand the underlying emotional forces driving central hostility. It was acknowledged that central fears of relinquishing control and oversight were a strong influencing factor for many civil servants and that arguments would need to target “the heart as well as the head” if popular momentum for reform was to be achieved. Suggestions for such appeals included:
o Focussing on local senses of identity.
o Emphasising that devolution was a solution to the postcode lottery rather than a cause.
o Highlighting the poor track record of Central Government to deal with local issues effectively as an institutional failure.
o Demonstrating that individuals had greater influence over their lives and could better hold performance to account under devolved powers. Members saw the proposed lowering of the voting age as an opportunity to tie in messages around benefits to increased citizen participation.
o Showing what had been made possible through a combined authority approach which would otherwise not be achievable in local areas.
o Emphasising the greater opportunities for devolution within local communities as well as from central to local government.
o While the Scottish independence campaign was perceived as a potential model to learn from, caution was urged on aligning English areas with Scottish devolutionary arguments as studies suggested the country was now more centralised than Westminster.
· Cllr Leese said that it should be up to authorities to decide whether or not devolution was right for them and that those who did not should not have it forced on them.
· Members requested that an introductory paragraph within the report should outline some key principles, including
· On the other opportunities listed for transferral of powers, members said that the focus should be on what powers were needed to achieve specific outcomes on local government priorities and that a “menu” approach should be avoided. There was a danger that if powers were not carefully considered and arguments developed from the outset, a “rag bag” of devolutionary powers could be imposed which transferred more problematic responsibilities from central to local government but did little to improve local areas.
· Some members advocated prioritising powers which would allow authorities to demonstrate success in a straightforward way before looking at powers which had more complicated implications for authorities.
· Members saw the role of MPs in getting the legislation right rather than intervening in powers at local level. They emphasised that parliamentary constituencies should not be seen as local places.
In closing, Carolyn said that the LGA’s proposals were scheduled to go to Government in mid-April as civil servants were currently preparing briefs for new ministers. She said that comments from members indicated that a longer term piece of work on fiscal devolution would be beneficial.
Actions
Members’ comments to be integrated into redrafted report. LGA Officers
Officers to seek to commission work into fiscal devolution. LGA Officers