ippr north

Devolution: a decade on

Ten years after the Scottish electorate voted for their own parliament with (some) law and tax raising powers, the cracks are beginning to show….

While support for Scottish independence still runs at about 3 in 10 people (the same as before devolution), there is considerable support in Scotland to look again at the powers available to the parliament, and where they might need to be strengthened.  Over 50% of respondents in Scotlandtell pollsters they want more powers for their parliament.

And cracks may also be appearing in England too.  Public opinion here supports the continuation of the Union, but there is unease about the ‘anomalies’ of devolution such as the way public spending is distributed via the Barnett Formula and the ability of Scottish MPs to vote on laws that apply only to England, aka the West Lothian Question.  This dissatisfaction may be ripe for mobilisation. 

Of course that’s not to say the Union is in a terminal state, far from it really, as a majority of people in both England and Scotland still support its continuation.  For this reason we should be looking at ways to ease the tensions and prevent the cracks deepening and spreading. 

A wise man once said devolution is a process and not an event, and how right he was.  If the Union is to last another 300 years, now is the time to think seriously about the next stage.  The Scots are already doing this, with their National Conversation.  It is time the English joined in.

Leading the way...

“the political system too often ignores or neglects new ideas that flow from outside in Westminster and often in the past have failed to listen and learn, so we have to rise to the challenge of opening up our political system to recognise and to take on board new ideas” (Gordon Brown speech to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, 3 September 2007).

I couldn’t have put it better myself!  Opening up Westminster and Whitehall to new ideas and experiences from outside that square mile in London has been a key goal for ippr north over the last 4 years, and it is great to see that Gordon Brown is on the same page.  No longer does the man in Whitehall know best. 

Brown’s announcement of citizen juries and standing commissions to bring different voices from outside of party politics into policy development is highly welcome.  It will open up policy debates to fresh ideas and make better use of the talent that undoubtedly exists in this country. For those that have the opportunity to participate in these forums it could spark a more lasting engagement with politics and democracy. However, for it to mark the shift that Brown wants will require considerable commitment on the Government’s part.  To become effective these new mechanisms must have traction in the policy making process, and not just become another box ticking exercise.

The North – victim or liability? Neither, let’s talk about opportunity instead

A couple of weeks ago, we trailed the first of our stories relating to our Northern Economic Agenda research project. The main line for the press release was that, since 1997, the economies of the North have not made up ground on their counterparts in the South East as they would have liked.

There are some mitigating factors that are worthy of consideration. First, the South East has performed exceptionally well over the last ten years, the North has not performed terribly, but it has only done ok. Second, the Government’s preferred output measure pays no regard to quality of life issues that are undeniably important to people. Things like access to green spaces and shorter commuting times are difficult to quantify and are often omitted as a result.

The release generated good coverage – particularly in the FT, the Telegraph and on the BBC News website. The newly formed Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform accepted that growth rates had not narrowed over the period we identified, but pointed out that the North’s performance has improved since 2003. Hopefully this can be continued in the years to come.

There was one response, however, that struck me as being particularly reactionary. This was that if something underperformed against expectation, it should be condemned. While this sort of conclusion might be appropriate when reviewing a new model of car or washing machine, the analogy simply does not transfer to an analysis of regional economic performance. To pour scorn on the economic performance of the North is to miss the point. Yes, the North needs to do more, but we need to think pragmatically and positively about what can be done – particularly through the levers of public policy – to facilitate an improved performance.

Importantly, if the North and the other regions with output figures below the national average were to improve their economic performance to the national average – everyone – including those in the South East would be better off. That should be motivation enough for us to move beyond clichéd debates over regional superiority. What do you think?

FOOD GLORIOUS FOOD

School children everywhere are enjoying their summer break, but some might be enjoying it more than others. It all inevitably comes down to money and we are asking whether government could do more to help low income families over the summer holidays.

As part of our food for thought research we are considering food and its relationship to public policy, and one key relationship is between food and children’s welfare. This is typified by the provision of free school meals for decades. These act as a safety net to children from the most vulnerable households, ensuring that they can receive a free healthy meal for free during term time.

In recent years school meals have received a lot of attention; for example Jamie Oliver’s campaign to improve the quality of ingredients and remove Turkey Twizzlers from school dinners. Government money and support for this followed resulting in nutritional guidance for school meals and more money being spent on the quality of ingredients.

Efforts are clearly focused within schools but how do the 850,000 children from low income families in England who take up the offer of free school meals fare during the six weeks of summer holiday?  Feeding school kids over the six week break would cost £46.20 per child in primary school and £48.20 per child in secondary school, money that hard up families would no longer have to fork out. These aren’t vast sums but could make a real difference over the summer months.

So what can be done? As you may have read in today's Mirror or Guardian we suggest that more help could be given during the summer break. Many children go to holiday clubs and it isn't beyond the realms of possibility for the equivalent of free school meals to be provided at these.  Could and should government go further to help low income families over the summer, particularly if it is to meet its target to halve child poverty by 2010?  Extending free school meal provision is one way we could support poorer families in meeting the ever increasing cost of summer.

To the regions…and beyond

Last week I wrote on Open Democracy's blog of the Sub-National Review of Economic Development and Regeneration grabbing headlines for culling the regional assemblies. But there was more to the review then that: combined with Brown’s plans for constitutional reform, it gives us a further glimpse at the Prime Minister's approach to power and accountability.

The review offers more power to local authorities, transferring 14-19 education budgets to them, as well as opening consultations on a legal duty for economic development and some flexibility over business rates.  It also strengthens the role of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), adding to their portfolio the Assemblies’ strategic powers over planning, transport and housing.  Bringing these powers together with economic development may result in regional strategies that are more focused, prioritised and coherent.

This will be challenging as RDAs are business-led quangos primarily focused on economic development.  Their new planning role will encompass land use, the green belt and housing - not simply economic matters, but social and environmental ones too. It is here that the role of local authorities is critical, as they must provide RDAs with their knowledge and experience in these matters.  Most importantly they will provide accountability.

The review gives local authority leaders a more integral role in developing and agreeing regional strategies.  Embedding local authorities in the work of their region has to be welcomed but could prove a complicated process.  Two additional government departments will also have to sign off strategies, with regional select committees offering additional scrutiny.  It remains to be seen whether this is the beginning of a bright new relationship between central and local levels or just too many cooks in the kitchen.

In our State of the Union project we argue that Brown must focus on the way England is governed as part of this constitutional reform.  He must address the real curse of the English: not what Scottish MPs can vote on but overbearing centralisation in England. Taken together with the promised concordat between local and central government, maybe, just maybe, this review signals a step in the right direction.

Regions in the spotlight

It’s often argued that despite substantial funding allocated to the English regions and a multitude of regionally-targeted initiatives, the English regional policy lacks individual approaches to the regions. There is an impression that sometimes the Government is not brave enough to propose a positive discrimination agenda when some regions are treated very differently based on their specific local conditions and needs. The start of Gordon Brown’s term as Prime Minister was marked with a proposal to substantially change the way in which the country is governed. Last week’s Green Paper Governance of Britain contains proposals which could have fundamental implications for the English regions.

The newly introduced regional minister posts, and the proposal to create regional select committees along with introducing regional questions in Parliament could pave the way towards more regionally-tailored, place-based policies across Whitehall departments, with increased levels of accountability. Although these changes are broadly positive, it is important to highlight some of the potential implications. Nine individuals are representing the interests of the nine regions in Westminster and Whitehall giving local and regional governments greater accessibility to central decision-making. In addition, the regional ministers have also been made responsible for giving citizens a voice in central government.

However, the proposed arrangement may also create unhealthy rivalry and competition for funds from individual departments that are ring-fenced but not specifically allocated, such as investment in transport. It may also be difficult to steer cross-departmental co-ordination when there are nine different positions to take into account. The lack of institutional organisation and specifically allocated resources may further hinder the process of coordination.

It is also important to look at relations between the ministers, who should provide a clear sense of strategic direction for their region, and other regional institutions, such as Government Offices in the regions, Regional Development Agencies and Regional Assemblies. Will roles and responsibilities of these organisations be changed as a result of the new ministerial posts? We expect this question to be answered in the Government’s Sub-national Review of Economic Development and Regeneration, which will be released very soon.

Greater scrutiny of regional policy initiatives at the national level, as proposed by the Green Paper, is a very positive step. However, it is important to ensure that it’s not performed at the expense of regional and local powers of accountability. There is then a danger that these changes will not be perceived as a move towards greater decentralisation but rather centralisation. For this reason we should make maximum use of these new influence mechanisms transferred from London as an opportunity to articulate and implement policy priorities that are important for the individual regions.

Scotland's Choice

Next month sees the Scottish Parliament’s third election since devolution in 1999, while almost to the day, the Union also celebrates its third centenary.  The question on everybody’s lips is whether Scotland is about to take a leap towards independence thus ending the Union with England.

Previously I've mentioned our State of the Union project, which looks at the prospects for the Union between England and Scotland in the 21st Century, and this of course remains a hot topic as the campaigns for the Scottish Parliamentary elections get underway.  The Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) are doing well in the polls, and look set to be the largest party in the Scottish Parliament after the elections - but not large enough to govern without the support of the Liberal Democrats.

However this prospect is by no means guaranteed and will require some tough negotiations, not least because the Lib Dems have publicly declared themselves against holding a referendum on independence in the next four years, a central plank of SNP policy.  More recently the Lib Dems have floated the idea of more powers for the Parliament, which could be a way for both parties to kick the independence issue into the long grass.  That might not be a bad idea for the SNP as recent polls, suggest that support for the party is not translating into support for independence, which currently stands at 27%.

Much of the debate about unionism and nationalism revolves around the performance of the Scottish economy, which has become one of the central issues in the election campaign, but the argument in many ways remains rather superficial.  Some nationalists claim an independent Scotland that cuts corporation tax will be the answer to all Scotland’s economic problems.  On the other side some Unionists dangle the threat of removing the fiscal transfers that Scotland currently enjoys, rather than seeking to positively address the underlying problems that hold the Scottish economy back.  And never far away is the debate about whether an independent Scotland would be able to balance its books, this largely focuses around the value and ownership of North Sea oil - although it hardly seems the most sustainable basis for a successful long-term economy.

Our seminar last week tried to get under the surface of these debates by looking at how interdependent our economies are, considering trade and migration between the two nations and what the implications are for the Union.  We also looked at the fiscal debate, and possible models for replacing the Barnett Formula.  This is work that we will be developing over the next few months, and no matter who wins the Scottish elections, these are not issues that will go away.

Lyons' Roar?

The remit has been extended several times, and publication was originally scheduled for December 2005, but finally, yesterday, the long awaited Lyons Inquiry into the future of local government was published.

Most of the coverage so far has been about the recommendations regarding the council tax.  In many ways this is understandable. Council tax is certainly unpopular and regressive, and Lyons’ recommendations to make council tax simpler and fairer must be implemented by central government.

However, Lyons also has another story to tell, one that so far has been less reported.  His final report takes a balanced and considered view of the risks and opportunities associated with local flexibility.  We at ippr north know from our work on devolution that while on the one hand people want greater local flexibility, they also want common minimum standards of service delivery.  Lyons recognises the need to combine light touch common standards with local flexibility.

This is the right approach but it presents serious challenges to both central government and local government.  Central government must continue to loosen its stifling target and control culture – and once loosened departments must resist the temptation to allow ring fencing and restrictive targets and performance management to creep back in.  That is not to say there is no place for targets and performance management, only that it is time there was a far more grown up relationship between central and local government.

For local authorities too this presents challenges.  They must respond to this opportunity and be less risk averse if the innovation and creativity that greater flexibility can bring is to be realised.  They must also be more outward-looking, embracing their role in reconnecting people to politics.  The best of local government already does this, but it is time to see more of it.

The Sand Timer

Where you live can affect your likelihood of being in work and, to some extent, we do live by post code lottery.  Geographical variations of worklessness throughout the UK underline the need to look at what more can be achieved at a local labour market levels.  This certainly shouldn't mean an end to common standards of welfare provision but should be about setting minimum standards centrally and giving local areas the flexibility to deliver in the most appropriate way.

Last week we published The Sand Timer which looked at the remaining challenges for reaching full employment in the North West of England and on Friday held an event in Manchester looking at these issues with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, John Hutton.  One of the themes of the conference, and our research, was greater devolution within the welfare to work system; empowering local areas to better understand and respond to their local labour market conditions.

There has also been much talk of benefit reform and the next steps for welfare to work over the last few days in response to the publication of David Freud's review of future welfare to work options.  These debates are critical for this government in light of its aspiration to have 80% of the population in work, and it's no surprise that Blair and Brown are standing as one on this issue. For a progressive think tank such as ourselves full employment is not just about economic efficiency and making sure that no talent is wasted, it's also about work as the best route out of poverty. Also let's not forget that working increases levels of wellbeing, self-esteem and confidence.

Our research (alongside anecdotal evidence from our conference) shows the ability to coordinate activity locally is often constrained by a lack of coordination centrally. So while Freud's discussion of contracting, personalisation, rights and responsibilities in the benefits system and the potential merits of a single benefit are all important, they are not the whole picture.  Undoubtedly great strides have been made in improving the employment rate in recent years, and while we are closer to full employment, we are still not close enough.

Better off together?

ippr north, jointly with our colleagues at the Scottish Council Foundation held a seminar last Friday on the State of the Union between England and Scotland, which set the context for a project we’re hoping to get off the ground this year looking at the relationship between the two nations. Alistair Darling opened proceedings by setting out the case for the Union, mostly in economic terms – his speech is on our website. He put forward a well argued and thoughtful case, which is welcome as so much of the debate about the relationship between England and Scotland is deeply polarised, usually descending into sensationalism and political mudslinging which leaves the public none the wiser. Some Unionists paint a picture of imminent economic collapse, engaging in the politics of fear rather than genuine public debate. Some nationalists are equally to blame, invoking a time of economic utopia if freed of the Union, or glibly responding that Scotland can slip seamlessly from a UK single market into an EU single market with little change.

The truth really is that we simply don’t know what would happen. That's why we're keen to make sure our project gets off the ground - far too often the debate is conducted in these crude terms, and we want to inform the debate providing more light and less heat.