Reversing the flow: how localism and devolution can work together
Fighting against the current: while power flows from centre to local, the local will always be weak
THE world is becoming less local. The corner shop is now a remote supermarket and the high street picture palace an industrial estate multiplex. The places where we choose to live, work and play are increasingly distant from one another and our social networks – when not spread out over the internet – reflect this mobility. In the last 15 years our number of short journeys (less than one mile) has fallen by a third, while those of between 5-10 miles have increased by a fifth.
The local is withering. The traditional media has scaled back its local coverage. Retail has retreated into concentrated, designated areas, not always out-of-town but most often out of our town. And amenities, from the pub to the post office are under threat or have already succumbed. The rationalisation of public services is seldom seen within this context. School reorganisation is about falling rolls rather than economies of scale. The concentration of specialist services into a few larger hospitals is defended as an attempt to create regional centres of excellence. The absence of the local police station is bemoaned as indifference to crime and disorder. Councils fill a few vacated high street retail units with housing offices, but many of the services we value and use most frequently no longer appear to be on our doorstep, as they once seemed to be. Accordingly, the bodies charged with delivering these public services have been subjected to wave upon wave of consolidation from the 1970s onwards.
It is a process that seems as involuntary as it is inexorable. We love the idea of local as much as ever, and yearn to feel part of our neighbourhood. A survey this week revealed that two thirds of south Wales shoppers said they preferred local shops to corporate behemoths, while a Joseph Rowntree Foundation study of 2007 found a clear correlation between community cohesion and good local amenities. And this is an attachment our politicians are keen to tap. David Cameron, still odds on to be Prime Minister by June, has pledged a new era of localism. Some of how the Tory leader proposes to go about this transformation is known. In place of the currently unsustainable ITV Wales news he proposes a network of local television stations, using frequencies freed up by digital switchover. In other areas, such as the devolution of benefits payment levels to local authorities, the ideas are both radical and controversial. And in some, the Conservative reforms seem destined to end at the English border.
But Cameron has promised more than localism. He has pledged a radical programme of decentralisation. We have heard that before, and ended up with nothing of the sort. If it is to mean anything and go anywhere this time, two inter-related debates will surely follow. The first, already upon us, is the optimum number and size of local government units, and particularly principal Local Authorities. Here, the direction of travel in Wales is firmly against a dispersal of power outwards and downwards. Labour’s failed NHS decentralisation has been reversed and to many it now seems obvious that the number of councils must also be consolidated. The second will be the sort of powers, duties and responsibilities local bodies should be given, and the freedoms they ought to enjoy.
These are both important debates. Fewer bodies means larger bodies, which means a more aggregated, more diffused expression of local will. But it may also mean greater value-for-money, if not better outright delivery. More powers means a greater latitude to respond to local feeling, which in turn means greater divergence and such politically unpalatable outcomes as postcode lotteries. There are trade offs along each axis.
But, as important as these considerations are, they are answers to the wrong questions, or at least to second-tier questions. A genuine programme of decentralisation must mean more than adjusting the precise division of responsibilities and delegation of powers, and go beyond merely re-jigging the number of councils. Proper decentralisation means reversing the power flow altogether, so that the local level possesses all the authority until or unless it chooses to pool or delegate it upwards.
How might such a thing work in practice? We should be clear that we are not talking about your local County Borough Council taking possession of the nuclear launch codes. In those clear “higher state” functions business would operate as usual. For everything else, however, the presumption should be that it is for the local level to decide how to exercise, or delegate, power. This is not so different from central government possessing powers over, for example, education but choosing to delegate them downward. Except, or course, that it seldom works like that. In practice, local government has become the delivery agent for policies agreed in the centre, and carries them out with very little room for deviation.
Put that process into reverse and it begins to make a lot more sense. The centre, instead of acting as director, becomes the implementer of only what is sensible and compelling for the localities to pool. What it also means is that localities will federate with every such unit for some things, will join with perhaps only a group for others (e.g region-level services), will link up with perhaps its neighbour only for others, and could act by itself for the remainder. Instead of the perpetual process of redrawing boundaries, reconfiguring authorities and joining and detaching services, the right level of delivery would find itself, and would adapt organically.
This is a call similar to that taken up recently by True Wales, the group established to oppose the transfer of law-making powers to the Assembly. But in fact, it could work very well with an Assembly gaining in power, stature and authority. The need for an all-Wales approach to key services remains as strong as ever, and indeed for laws to be passed in those areas of competence. Authority would be delegated upwards for that end, but it would be targeted very precisely on those areas where it makes little sense for the local unit to act alone, or with only a few others. And the right to vary the approach according to local tastes and priorities would be built in. The localist agenda is presented too often as a challenge to devolved government, or the process of nation-building, but if you reverse the flow they segue beautifully. The national level becomes the constantly re-affirmed collective will of each part of Wales, rather than a central and centralising statelet.
It is, of course, very abstract. None of it can happen easily, or without a deeply radical reappraisal of the way the UK, much less Wales, is governed. And it does not – directly at least – answer the opening dilemma of a world that is becoming less local despite our wishes for it to be more so. But the point, perhaps, is that it offers a new way that such a conundrum might be resolved. We cannot presently adequately test the importance we attach to the amenities and features that are vanishing from our local landscape, because the local level is almost powerless to do anything about it. Reverse the flow, and the picture begins to look a little different. If all politics is local, shouldn’t all power be?
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
With talk like … the right level of delivery would find itself, and would adapt organically your intention must have been to terrify politicians everywhere and offer a light at the end of a democratic tunnel.
The localist agenda should not be seen as a threat to democracy, more of a sign post that asks the public where they might like to travel rather than giving the only direction on offer.
Well said Mr Higgitt, gladdens this old Conservatives heart, I am surprised that the conservatives and socialists in Wales are unable to work together, maybe they could.
Adam, you should have sent me an email telling me take my cardiac tablets before reading the article!
On the retail front ‘you pays your money and you takes your pick’ and nothing is going to stop that. Medical provision is too technical to be delivered everywhere on a local basis. But the thing that people value most, and appears to make them the most happy, is to be able to make a choice about the things that concern their welfare and environment – i.e. anything that effects where they live and work. The centralisation of power, even if you move the point at which it is delivered as in the current devolution practice, does not improve the ability of people to make the choices about the things that matter to them. We have a case in Port Talbot of the decision of an overseas funded company wanting to build the world’s largest power generation station within 150 metres of some of the best position homes in the town. Despite obvious planning breaches and technical inadequacies the NPTCBC passed the plans. This resulted in a group “Ratepayers against Prenergy” taking issue with the company, the council and now it appears the Assembly. The legal costs to the citizens who made up the committee has been £30,000, despite the fact that on the issues in court, they won. This is outrageous. Dr Gibbons has been very supportive from the beginning and has gone on record saying that the work and evidence the RAP has provided will be of benefit, not only to other citizen’s groups in Wales but the UK. This is a case where the citizen’s should have had the greater power because they know and understand the local conditions – and it proved were the possessors of greater technical knowledge. However, the outcome is likely to be the world’s largest power station overshadowing the houses on the estuary.
Without making a political point, True Wales advocates outward devolution to the lowest point of decision. It will differ as you point out, but the march towards centralised government, wherever located, won’t make people happier. Cardiff is not Valhalla.
Thanks for the article.
In other words you’re advocating the end of Parliamentary sovereignty?
Plenty to think about here – thanks. ‘Local’ is the place where people can feel more empowered to do something to try to make a difference.
Thanks for the responses, even the mildly poisoned chalice passed my way by John T
Hendre – it’s a perfectly reasonable question, to which the answer is a guarded “yes”. I can see a continuing need for state-level functions from which the local or sub-state level would not be able to secede without a formal constitutional process. For everything else, it ought to be possible to imagine sovereignty – for want of a better word – resting at the local level.
This could be more important than assumed. At present, the localities would, we assume opt, to remain in federation with other Welsh localities, but in Union with each of the UK’s nations, which in turn remained in a looser union with the rest of Europe. But in time this might change, so for example they might choose to federate only with other Welsh localities for the purposes of state-level functions within the EU. In time, even this union might come to be surplus to requirements. We might end up with a Europe of the localities, with alliances formed and maintained according to the best (defined as the optimum trade-off between delivery and responsiveness) and all state-level functions operated on a pan-Europe basis.
Excellent and serious article with alot to think about.
Centralists may argue that the issue here is ‘competence’. Are there local structures in place competent to deal with devolved decentralised functions? Maybe so, possibly not. Personally, I think that power follows money so if we in Wales were to able repair the financial systems underpinning the Welsh economy by concentrating on introducing new locality financing systems then political power would come and it would be localised. As to the ‘higher’ functions of state like defense and foreign policy these are never likely to be devolved for obvious reasons.
The key issue is creating the environment in which social entrepreneurs can shape their communities with the support of an enabling government. It is quite possible for this to occur without further devolution to the National Assembly as is currently being debated.
After all, let’s not confuse devolution to communities or localism with national political devolution. While I am not saying there should not be devolution of further powers, it is not a pre-requisite for unleashing the dynamism and latent creativity of people in our communities up and down Wales.
With new legislation putting mutuals on the same level playing field as the proprietary model likely to be on the statute book before the next election, such a framework offers real potential to release entrepreneurial and co-operative energy in ways that can transform our communites without there being any enhanced powers for the Assembly.
Remember, the goal remains empowerment and a climate in which the aspirations of the many, and not the few, are enabled.
Well thought out article.
What is happening especially with young people is an ever increasing move to places of higher pop. density. For instance away from rural areas to the cities. The rural area in Wales where i live is largely inhabited by middle age-older settlers with some disposable income. While the young cannot afford rural properties and tend to rent poor dwellings or purchase houses that have a ground floor that has seemingly being hit by a meteor and needs ten barrows of concrete chucked in (like senn)
The nearest town is the nearest thing to a ghost town. The police station is uninhabited and the rather nice public gardens built a few years ago are permanently locked due to lack of security/supervision . or lack of communication between authoirites and local people. The library is open only a few hours per week (i think it is 7hrs) due again to councils lack of communication with locals. I have suggested volunteers but it would be far too much work to organise…. The main former workstation for the town, alarge creamery is a huge mound of rubble…a concrete slag heap almost as large as the slate slagheap in Blaenau Ffestioniog.
But there is some nice wildflowers growing which would not have grown otherwise.
Telephone boxes are de-commissioned by BT in rural reas which is a further affront against localism.
There is one old red box which has been offered to our community council (which rests on private land- my mates ground) but there is no one in the community council who is seemingly able to write a letter in English to accept it, (2 years ago) So it sits there as a museum piece!
It is good the Cameronian is embracing localism cus that is what is needed in rural Wales . Intelligent and sensitive localism. One must not trust councils at all costs to try and implement.
The classic example in Wales has got to be Llanelli. Business has gone . Local business nowhere to be seen . All gone to Trostre and the big chainstores.
I very much enjoyed reading your article Adam Higgitt, and it is something that was touched on in Betsan Powys blog [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/betsanpowys/2010/01/extraordinary_times.html#comments|Extraordinary Times] on 20 January. I think the general consensus was an agreement for four or five regional counties. I agree with the thrust of your argument, and particularly that localisation …
“Could work very well with an Assembly gaining in power, stature and authority. The need for an all-Wales approach to key services remains as strong as ever, and indeed for laws to be passed in those areas of competence. Authority would be delegated upwards for that end, but it would be targeted very precisely on those areas where it makes little sense for the local unit to act alone, or with only a few others. And the right to vary the approach according to local tastes and priorities would be built in. The localist agenda is presented too often as a challenge to devolved government, or the process of nation-building, but if you reverse the flow they segue beautifully. The national level becomes the constantly re-affirmed collective will of each part of Wales, rather than a central and centralising statelet.”
Personally, I believe that 22 local authorities are simply way too many, and am currently studying the local governance in other countries. Of particularly interested is the relationship between Swiss cantons and their centralised authority, and also the relationship between US States and their counties. Clearly, there is such a strong pull towards centralisation in Britain, but it seems the federal approach has a lot to recommend it.
Swiss cantons are responsible form the delivery of healthcare, welfare, law enforcement, public education, but also the ability of taxation. Also, cantons are able to determine the degree of even more localised municipalities and rural districts, which can very to a degree. The populations of cantons vary from 15,471 to 1,244,400. A similar approach and division of responsibility exists between US States and their local counties and cities.
With this framework in mind, there are primarily four regions in Wales that could form the basis for a Swiss style canton or a US style county. And indeed the NHC Wales has divided its delivery of services into three regions already, as has the Fire and Rescue Service, and Policing. These services are based on north Wales, mid and west Wales, and south Wales. Essentially, I would suggest returning to the 1962 report on Local Government Commission for Wales. I would propose the counties of Gwynedd for north Wales, Powys for mid Wales, Deheubarth/Dyfed for west Wales, and Glamorgan for south Wales. Each of these counties would operate much like those Swiss cantons or US style counties, with the Welsh Assembly as an oversight role for all-Wales matters. I believe that this kind of localised responsibly, devolved upwards in the manner you suggest, would encourage localised civic nationalism, with locals taking more ownership of their needs.
While I agree with the Canton approach, I dont think it will work if you have a tiny (population-wise) Powys alongside a massive South Wales.
What we should build on is our 3 city-regions (Newport-Gwent; Cardiff-East Glamorgan; Swanse-West Glamorgan and two mixed regions of North Wales and Dyfed Powys (except maybe Powys needs to be looked at again).
But then we should align all services such as NHS, Fire-Rescue, etc within these boundaries and then make them democraticially accountable
I was reading up on the US State of Massachusetts in the intervening time since my last post Penddu, and find some interesting comparisons. Firstly, geographically that state is about the same size as Wales, and has 16 counties. It has twice the population of Wales, however. You may be interested in this Penddu as a reference to compare local responsabilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Massachusetts
((By the way, how does one hyperlink in text here?))
Lliving in a country that practices “localism” I can shed some light on fundamental differences between the US and UK. First of all is funding. In Kansas local services are usually paid for with local revenue (property taxes collected by the county, and sales tax by the city). That can be a huge disadvantage if you live in a rural area (live me) where there are few people and businesses. For example the local school district has a deficit of 50 Million dollars, which means it can not build new schools for the growing population. At the moment the State of Kansas lost a court case over the problem of underfunding rural school districts. However we have not seen the money. Saying that the schools are in good condition and minority children do get the proper services. That is the disadvantage. saying that Kansas (small rural state with as population of 2.8 Million) has a better school system than California, with most of its funding coming from the State. Tip O Neill said that all politics are local. Planning stops at the county level and that is the way that Americans like it. In the UK and Wales in particular most funding comes from Central government and WAG has the final say over planning.
Do the “No” group prefer to leave decision making in the hands of Westminster?