Is all the talk about double devolution and localism warm words? We have a Scottish parliament, a Welsh assembly and the option of elected mayors, but progress has ground to a halt. Regional devolution was stillborn. Double devolution is at best vague and at worst a further shift of powers away from elected councillors to unelected bodies. David Cameron’s commitment to localism appears to consist of imposing referendums for elected mayors.
Most politicians have very little power. Except for cabinet members in local and central government and other ministers, the only formal power most MPs and councillors enjoy is to elect the leader. Scrutiny, casework and campaigning do good, attract publicity and exert influence, but they are seen as a pretty weak form of power. Most politicians have no power to make decisions. Even those with executive power (except elected mayors) enjoy it courtesy of the leader and the party, not the voters. Voters recognise this.
Why not give politicians more power? Not a popular move, but it could reinvigorate representative democracy and solve a number of tricky problems. In local government the ward councillor role is the poor relation in the new tripartite structure, when set against the executive and scrutiny roles. Yet the renewal of the ward role was one of the main arguments for the changes made by Labour to local government a decade ago.
Many local councils are exploring devolving budgets and services to local councillors. The process is at an early stage and is sometimes confused with increasing direct democracy through wider citizen engagement. It is important to distinguish between the two. The best route to achieve the latter is increasing the power of councillors at ward or neighbourhood level to take decisions on budgets and services. They can then be properly held to account by their electors and effectively engage them in turn in decisionmaking. There is considerable scope for extending this approach to MPs and MEPs.
Following the north-east’s referendum, the option of directly elected regional government is off the table. Yet there remains real concern at the range of unelected bodies making decisions on public expenditure with little or no accountability to local people. In November 2008 the House of Commons agreed to establish regional select committees and regional grand committees. We propose that one or other of these new committees (or perhaps a hybrid of MPs and local government representatives at a regional level) be given the powers currently held by regional development agencies (RDAs) to decide on spending and priorities for RDAs. This could be extended into the budgets of other government departments like the Department for Work and Pensions.
This would provide for direct accountability to the elected representatives who are best known in local communities (ie MPs). This principle could be extended further. For example, at the regional level European spending remains important – could MEPs (alone or alongside their Westminster colleagues) have a direct role in delivery here? There is also a case for MPs to sit on key local public service boards like strategic health authorities and primary care trusts. This could enhance local accountability and improve the quality of legislation and scrutiny in parliament.
The present system of scrutiny in parliament and local councils gives little power other than to make recommendations. Should scrutiny committees have the power to refer back decisions of the executive for a formal vote in the main chamber? Certainly knowledge gained from making decisions on regional and local budgets and monitoring the delivery of services would enormously strengthen the ability of MPs to hold ministers and central government departments to account and significantly increase their bargaining power and the influence of their recommendations.
Extending the role of elected representatives along these lines would lead to fundamental changes in their role, particularly for MPs. It would be uncomfortable for ministers, but could also lead to a more responsible and informed approach to the difficult choices involved in public administration. It would also give greater importance to who our elected representatives are. We would no longer be voting for people whose main power is to elect a leader or try to influence legislation (important as these roles are) but for people who make direct decisions about key public services we use.