Getting the devolution revolution right

Whilst it is not the sort of announcement which is going to set the world on fire, Miliband’s endorsement of Andrew Adonis’ Growth Review – the most substantial and significant contribution to Labour’s policy review so far – is crucial as a sign of Labour’s future direction on devolution.

We’ve all read the stories about splits between those involved in the policy making process like Adonis and Jon Cruddas who support real and meaningful devolution of money and decision making to councils and communities and those who want to keep power centralised in Whitehall. Miliband’s announcement is a victory for the former. However, there are some important omissions which we need to address in the manifesto if we’re to get the devolution revolution right.

Firstly, any increase in funding and powers for new and existing combined authorities should come with requirements for greater transparency, accountability and democracy – principally through a pledge to introduce directly elected mayors for the city regions where combined authorities are being introduced.

Whilst there is no doubt that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority on my patch is a model of successful pan-authority collaboration, if you ask voters on the streets of Bolton, Stockport or Trafford what it is and who runs it I’d be amazed if a single one would have a clue. A strong and visible directly elected mayor to lead these new authorities who can be held to account by the voters, with a clear mandate to negotiate with government on behalf of the whole city region and a proper system of scrutiny by local councillors is something Labour should strongly support.

Some might argue there is no appetite for this after the failed referendums in many cities in 2012. The difference this time would be the city region mandate and a real, genuine devolution of power and money to make these positions meaningful as opposed to the pointless gesture made by the current government. Even with the weak offer made last time round, a vociferous no campaign and no yes campaign of any significance, 47% of Manchester backed an elected mayor and voters next door in Salford in a locally generated referendum voted to introduce their own city mayor.

Secondly, we need to be clearer on what our offer is to areas which don’t fit neatly into the city region box. Places like Lancashire, which badly need additional funding and decision making powers but find themselves left out. Or the North East where perhaps it is time to look again at some form of regional government, but with meaningful powers over housing, transport, health, education and economic growth – the sorts of policy areas devolved to its neighbours in Scotland.

Finally, we need to be careful of placing additional responsibilities with Local Enterprise Partnerships. Hastily created by the government in an attempt to plug the gap left by scrapping Regional Development Agencies, LEPs are boards largely made up of local business figures and a handful of local authority and public sector representatives which have responsibility for spending the £2 billion growth fund and the next round of European funding.

As with many initiatives of this government, LEPs were set up with little thought for the support and expertise they would need to carry out these functions and many LEPs are floundering even now two years in. In my previous professional role I was tasked with engaging with LEPs and assessing where each was up to with their strategic plans and the picture is extremely mixed. Some have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds paying consultants to organise flashy business breakfasts and write hundred page brochures which say very little about what they will do, some seem to see the LEP as an extension of the golf club with lots of old white men patting each other on the back and talking about what a good job they’re doing. Only a small number are actually attempting to lay out clear and long term plans for economic growth and job creation, yet have no clarity from the government on where the money will come from or how much there will be after the next election.

All lack any democratic legitimacy and operate out of the public eye, with closed board meetings and little information available online about what they’re doing.

We also need to think about this policy agenda in the context of the wider debate about how we address increasing disenchantment and disenfranchisement from an increasingly frustrated and sceptical electorate. In poll after poll people report that they don’t trust politicians and rising support for anti-politics parties like UKIP is the expression of this anger which people feel with the ruling political class. Yet voters consistently express much greater trust in and support for local councils and services.

Paradoxically, turnout is significantly lower in local elections because people think they matter less as local government has had more and more power stripped away over the years by governments of all colours. Giving power back to local government and bringing decisions closer to people could help to restore trust in politics and increase voter turnout and engagement in civic life.