Devolution: good for local democracy or a central government power grab in disguise?

Following the recent article in HOT on the suspension of local elections as part of the government’s devolution plan, I was keen to see how Hastings Borough Council cabinet members would respond to plans to abolish the council. Dee Williams reports. 

On viewing the Monday evening cabinet meeting it was clear that the majority of councillors had no idea that their potential demise would come as a rather unwelcome New Year offering.  There were a number of questions regarding who knew what and when but it would seem that even the Chair, Julia Hilton, had been taken by surprise at the speed of events.

“The white paper which was produced on the… 16th December, that’s the first time that anything was written down that said we are expecting two-tier authorities to go.”  Julia Hilton Chair

Cutting across all other priorities the Urgent Item on January 6 outlined the context for a total reorganisation of all two-tier local authorities.

2. In the White Paper the government sets out its ambition to create new Strategic Authorities with an ultimate aim, in due course, of all areas being covered by a Mayoral Strategic Authority. Alongside these changes would come increased levels of devolution, in areas such as housing and planning, environment and climate change, business and research, skills and employment, and transport.

As a first step, East Sussex County Council, together with HBC and other local councils, would be replaced by a single unitary authority, eventually opening the way to a mayoral authority covering the whole of Sussex, with an elected mayor having the final say on issues such as housing, transport and protection of the environment.

As the councillors faced their demise there was much talk of ‘fighting back’ on behalf of the citizens of Hastings. Some attacked the Conservative-led East Sussex County Council who responded positively to the invitation to be among the first authorities to reorganise. The Chair clarified that this move would allow them to cancel elections for up to three years while the transformation took place. Others pointed the finger of blame at Labour-led central government who were driving the process at pace, including a clause that will allow Ministers to ‘knock heads together’ (Angela Raynor) where agreement cannot be reached.

There were many questions from concerned councillors and members of the public, but ESCC is in the driving seat and their next meeting is not until 9 January, leaving most questions unanswered.  To summarise, the key concern from all sides was whether a single Unitary Council, serving approximately 500,000 people, would improve local democracy. It would be impossible for a centrally placed Unitary Council to have the same local knowledge as councillors who live in the communities they serve. On the upside, there could be some financial savings, but the three-year reorganisation programme would cost both time and money in the short-term.

Central to protecting ‘the voice of the people’ is the proposal to put final decision-making powers into the hands of a single, elected Mayor. Rather than improving local democracy, this could be a significant step towards autocracy.  As 19th Century New York politician Boss Tweed once said, “I don’t care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.”

Boss Tweed and his corrupt “Tweed Ring” of city officials siphoned millions of dollars from bloated public works projects like a lavish new courthouse that cost nearly $15 million to build, including $9 million in kickbacks going to Tweed and his cronies.

Of course, it is possible to increase local democracy without such widespread disruption. Labour could decide to restore government settlement funding to pre-austerity levels, allowing councils more freedom to decide their spending priorities instead of receiving ring-fenced grants which are tailored to meet the government’s agenda.

The route to effective local democracy must surely be the ability of councils to have long-term autonomy over their budgets and spending goals. 

Hastings Independent Councillor Paul Barnett was in no doubt that the proposal was a scam.

“It makes no sense to call it devolution, that is just a scam by the government … it’s not devolution, it’s more power at the centre.  I’m sure what the government want is to be able to control power county by county across the country. One person representing the whole of Sussex who will be answerable not to the people of Sussex but to government.”  

Meanwhile Conservative Councillor Mike Edwards welcomed the plan saying it could be a fresh start.

“I think it’s quite exciting in a way. Many of us, perhaps even many of us in this room, would agree that local government is bust for a variety of reasons but mainly financial.”   

Labour Councillor John Rankin stated that it would put an end to the blame game where each authority denies responsibility. He also made an interesting point about funding.

“What does the council taxpayer get from this …   …this little town is a very well-populated little town. 90,000 people live here and we’re very valuable to ESCC. We raise £125 million a year in council tax, we only keep £15 million of that for ourselves. The rest goes to ESCC, the police and the fire authority.”

It looks like 2025 will be an interesting year for local government, but will the outcome improve local democracy as suggested by the White Paper, or will the new regional Mayors be used to harness central control?  Your comments are welcome.

Footnote: The devolution bill will be discussed again at the Full Council meeting on Wednesday 22 January from 6pm.  If you have thoughts or opinions you would like the council to consider, please contact one of your ward councillors so they can take residents’ views into account.

 

Also in: Local Government

£4.83m grant for Hastings to tackle homelessness »