18 August 2016
The Green Party strongly supports localism and the principle of devolution, which should be underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity. Regrettably, the current proposals are devolution in name only, as they will only serve to undermine local elected councillors and in some cases actually move power upwards. Without fiscal devolution, this is just shifting debt and blame for austerity away from the Treasury and on to local regions.
This response to the devolution consultation is sent on behalf of Green Party councillors on Norwich City Council and Norfolk County Council.
The response follows the order of the questions in the online consultation.
Q. Do you think decisions are better made nationally by the government in Westminster, or locally by the proposed Mayor and Combined Authority as described above?
This question is rather disingenuously presented as though these were the only two options. We believe decisions should be made at the most local appropriate level. There is certainly a need for regional-level working, but this can be done through cooperation between existing councils and does not require the creation of a new body.
Q. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the election of a mayor in order to access the decision making powers and funding in the proposed devolution deal?
We strongly oppose the proposal for an elected mayor, which concentrates too much power in the hands of one individual. In addition, mayors are usually responsible for a town or city; the idea of a ‘mayor’ for the whole of Norfolk and Suffolk makes no sense. The government’s insistence on a mayor indicates that, far from being at the service of local people, s/he would be an easy point of contact for Whitehall in order to keep control over the region.
There is no public appetite for an elected mayor, and voter turnout is likely to be low, which is bad for democracy.
Q. To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose participating councils becoming part of a Combined Authority along with other councils in Norfolk and Suffolk, which is chaired by a directly elected mayor?
There is clearly a case for councils working together on certain issues, but this can be done informally, without the need for a mayor. A combined authority consisting of council leaders would be unrepresentative and drown out opposition voices. If a combined authority is to be set up, it must be directly elected on a proportional basis.
We wish to object in the strongest possible terms to unelected LEP members having a vote on the combined authority. This is completely unacceptable in a democracy.
Q. To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with each aspect of how decisions would be made?
The options given within the online consultation make this another highly disingenuous question. Of course, in any elected body, each member should have one vote. However, what is not explained in the consultation is that a two-thirds majority would be required to overturn the mayor’s proposals, and that in some cases, the mayor would be able to push decisions through with support from only one “directly affected” authority. This is incredibly undemocratic and gives an inappropriate amount of power to one individual.
Voting members should be directly elected and nobody from an unelected body such as the LEP should have a vote.
Accountability
A proper system of overview and scrutiny is vital, but it is in any case a legal requirement. Scrutiny and assessment should largely be carried out by local councils and residents rather than central government – otherwise, ‘devolution’ becomes merely carrying out orders from Westminster.
The statement that the government assessments will be based on whether the CA’s actions have “contributed to national growth” is deeply alarming. Since continued funding is dependent on the outcome of these assessments, this suggests that nationally, regions which are struggling economically will have funding withdrawn. This is the very opposite of how government should work – it should be helping disadvantaged areas, not rewarding the wealthy. The combined authority should be obliged to measure and report how its decisions have affected quality of life, not just economic growth.
Any combined authority should be directly elected on a proportional basis.
Failing that, the scrutiny committee should, where political make-up of councils makes this possible, consist of members of a different political group from that of their council’s representative on the combined authority.
Priorities
It is difficult to know where to start with this, as the deal’s priorities are wrong almost from start to finish. The obsession with endless growth will destroy biodiversity, our air quality, our soil and our water, and will contribute to catastrophic climate change. The staggering failure to make any reference to climate change shows these proposals are ill-considered and unfit for the challenges we face. The focus on growth for big business will bring financial benefits to a few, but will do nothing to improve quality of life for the majority of people in Norfolk and Suffolk.
Devolution offers an opportunity for a really ambitious programme to help Norfolk and Suffolk transition to a low-carbon economy with an emphasis on local services and protecting nature. That opportunity has been missed. Instead, we have a proposed deal that favours high-carbon vanity projects over funding vital services; one which will lock the region in to an unsustainable rate of growth and accelerate the destruction of our natural environment.
Q. The proposals included in the devolution agreement are intended to improve local services in Norfolk and Suffolk. Is there anything else you would like to add to what we have discussed?
This seems to be another misleading question – the deal does not offer any money for ‘services’ as most people would understand the term, e.g. cleaning, bin collections, waste disposal, community centres, libraries and the many other things that councils provide.
The lack of information about the cost of the mayor and CA is very concerning. Local councils will initially be expected to meet this cost from their ever-diminishing resources, while in future years the mayor will have the right to increase council tax to pay for the role. This should have been made clear to residents in the consultation. The role of local government is to provide services; the requirement for it to behave increasingly like a profit-making enterprise will diminish its accountability and have damaging consequences for the people who depend on ‘unprofitable’ services.
We are concerned that the involvement of LEPs signals a move away from elected representatives and towards decision-making by businesses. This is never acceptable and we oppose LEPs having voting rights on any combined authority.
Although the current proposals do not take significant powers away from existing councils, the government’s legislation makes provision for this to happen later. It is clearly part of the Conservatives’ plan to destroy local government.
Finally, until this point there has been no attempt to involve the public in this process. Now we are presented with a ‘consultation’ when it has already been made clear that there is no opportunity to change the deal. The consultation includes several heavily biased questions and the ‘governance review’, which had clearly decided on its conclusions before doing any work (see for example the table on p17, where the mayoral model is claimed to have no disadvantages as a system of governance), appears designed to mislead the public and is a disgrace.
ENDS
