Devolution recognised Scotland’s distinctive status within the UK by setting up the Scottish Parliament. However, this was also intended to bring decision-making nearer to the people affected by it. It might have been expected that continuing decentralisation and local empowerment might have been a feature of the new parliament’s actions. Quite the reverse has been the case. Under the original LibLab coalitions and later the SNP, power has become ever more concentrated in Edinburgh and local democracy has been steadily weakened.
Local accountability is no longer a feature of the police or fire and rescue services. Health is managed by boards of varying levels of competence with little semblance of democratic influence. Public transport has been privatised and is largely fragmented with the laudable exception of Lothian Transport. Further education colleges have been in effect nationalised. Quangos have multiplied. Arms-length organisations sustain ministers’ power while seriously diluting accountability.
Local authorities have seen their powers reduced with ever-tighter central government direction of services. Financial constraints have further reduced councils’ capacity for independent action. Furthermore, no attempt has been made to reform a structure seen from the outset as haphazard and ineffective.
The structure of local government has been dramatically altered twice in the past half-century. In 1975 a two-tier system of regional and district council (with three all-purpose island authorities) came into operation. This structure largely followed on from the recommendations of a Royal Commission chaired by Lord Wheatley. It was the result of careful consideration and extensive consultation. It sought to respond to the peculiarities of Scotland’s geography with its mix of urban concentration across the central belt and extensive areas of sparse population in the Highlands and Islands and in the rural south. The system’s main failing was that it was not well-understood, with people finding it difficult to know which council – region or district – was responsible for each service.
Further sweeping change took place only 21 years after the two-tier structure was implemented. This time, there was no Royal Commission or, indeed, much sign of advance planning. The guiding principle was political advantage for the Conservative Party. Small Tory enclaves were to be protected from being swamped by Labour votes; hence the creation of separate authorities in East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire and Stirling. In the event, this strategy was unsuccessful; none of these councils was won by the Conservatives.
However, the legacy of this politically-motivated restructuring are still with us; lack of strategic planning in the large urban areas and small councils of doubtful viability. The 1996 structure has lasted significantly longer than its properly planned predecessor and there is no sign of any political will to alter it. I have gone into the history of local government reorganisation at some length because it demonstrates clearly that dysfunctionality is no barrier to a long lifespan in a Scotland which apparently no longer cares how it is governed below the level of Holyrood.
There are, however, good reasons why it should care. Almost all the services which have the greatest impact on individuals’ lives are managed by councils or by one or other of the quangos mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Furthermore, they are the subject of growing discontent. People know that educational standards are in decline and that NHS waiting times are unacceptable. Basic services are neglected; potholes can serve as the obvious example.
The issue here is not about whether these services need to be improved – that is obvious. The question is whether improvement would be more likely in a differently organised system in which there was increased democratic accountability and less centralisation.
Local government has generally been held in low esteem for decades. Few people of genuine talent are motivated to put themselves forward for election. A reform of councillors’ allowances some twenty years ago failed to bring worthwhile improvement. The demands on their time are, however, very great. Elected members are expected to commit to what is effectively a full-time job without receiving a worthwhile income. This is unsustainable. Either the time commitment must be made compatible with holding a full-time job or the role must carry a worthwhile remuneration. If pay were to be increased it would have implications for the number of members required. Typically, none of these issues has been addressed in a realistic manner in living memory.
The low esteem of local government has had an impact on the pay of senior officials also. The chief executives of Scotland’s two largest councils have salaries of around £200,000 per year. This is less than half the amount paid to some university principals. Universities are important institutions but the responsibility of running them does not compare with that of delivering a multitude of services to populations of over half a million.
There are issues too regarding the nature of governance. Councils function in a manner similar to the Scottish Parliament. Decisions are made by elected members. Officials advise and act on decisions. Health boards and other quangos are expected to ensure that the services for which they are responsible act within the law and remain solvent. They are governing bodies with responsibilities – often ill-defined – for long-term strategic planning, but are remote from most day-to-day decision making. The distinction between governance and management is well captured in the advice to board members, “noses in, fingers out”.
A case can be made out for either approach. However, in a democracy, the choice should be easy. The prevalence of the non-democratic option says much about contemporary Scotland.
To conclude, Devolution has not led to the kind of thriving grassroots democracy that many people hoped for. Decision making power has moved to Edinburgh, not only from London as was intended but also from Scotland’s local communities. The time is right for a reconsideration of how Scotland is run below the level of the Parliament. This should involve much more than another reorganisation of local government – although there is a good case for that – but also a discussion of how services such as health, police and transport should be run with the twin aims of improving service and increasing popular influence over matters of great significance to everyone.
Politicians of all parties should be pressing for action.
Keir Bloomer chairs our Commission on School Reform. He is an education consultant and a former Director of Education