Directly elected mayors could pave the way for a powerful new system local government, but only if they are given the powers they need,says Colin Copus.
At the same time that Labour Party members were cheering the election of Sir Peter Soulsby as the new directly elected mayor of Leicester at the May elections, Labour and Conservative supporters in Great Yarmouth were together cheering the ‘No’ vote in their mayoral referendum. Nothing demonstrates more the struggle to change the nature of local government than these two scenes of jubilant party workers.
There are key questions about elected mayors that need to be addressed. Why is it that the overwhelming majority of councillors are so afraid of the public deciding who has the top political post on the council?
Let's cut to the chase and ignore all this nonsense about mayoral power (which has been inflated beyond the realms of fantasy, by some), the real answers are simple: the voters get to choose who runs the shop and not councillors; and, the voters might choose someone that councillors don’t like. Neither of these answers is good enough, I'm afraid.
The next question is what to do about it? The answer here is somewhat more complex and the Localism Bill nudges in the right direction. The loss of council powers, the marginalisation of local government and the onward march of centralisation can be reversed at a stroke, by offering mayoral councils a range of new powers and responsibilities.
The Bills' provisions for mayoral management arrangements is a good step and would allow a council’s machine to be shaped to suit a set of policy priorities that had a clear electoral mandate. A danger exists however, in that a mayor could be drawn into managing the council rather than shaping the governance of an area – but a mayor who wished to win re-election would make sure that management rested with a manger while broad strategic / governing decisions rested with the mayor and with councillors.
We will have to wait and see if the Secretary of State's power to confer a'public service function' means the wholesale transference of powers and responsibilities from across the public sector, into mayoral local government.Probably not, but it does hold up the tempting prospect of mayoral authorities becoming more powerful political and public service entities than typical English councils. Moreover, we wait to see how enterprising mayors delegate some of these new responsibilities to councillors – outside the executive.
Indeed, councillors should start looking at what powers they would like for their councils, package up how members outside the executive would be involved in employing those powers and responsibilities, construct a council constitution that would enable them to do so; and then, resolve in council to move to a mayoral model; then say to Mr. Pickles:'We would like these ' public service functions', please!'
But,what the Bill holds before us could turn out to be little more than an overloading of local government with new responsibilities and little freedom or resources to manoeuver.
What is need is some muscular localism in the form of a manifesto for mayoral councils, so, here are some suggestions (and yes, I do realise there is much detail to be ironed out, but this is neither the time nor the place): -
1.Deciding, levying and keeping the proceeds of the business rate
2.Primary devolved legislative powers, unfettered or overseen by central government or the courts, over a range of issues that don't need a national solution but can be legislated for locally, in other words – an England federated into mayoral councils
3.Very light touch inspection
4.Unitary status on existing boundaries for councils adopting elected mayors (if the council does not already have that status, or unless the council doesn’t want unitary status), and not for counties –they're too big, sorry.
5.A reconfiguring of all public bodies such as police, hospitals, health service, fire and rescue, ports and docks, quangos and central government services; these bodies would cede power, policy-making and responsibilities – though not necessarily functions – to a mayoral council and distinct sub-units would be formed to match the boundaries of the mayoral council.
6.Hire and fire powers for the mayor not only over senior council staff but the chief executives and other senior officers of 5 above; and, a powerful confirmation hearing role for councillors in the appointment process.
7.New tax raising powers and taxation regimes such as sales, tourist taxes or local income tax, for mayoral councils to select without government interference.
8.No capping or financial control over mayoral council budgets
9.The right for mayoral councils to appeal against any policy or legislative proposals from government – mayoral councils and government to be bound by the outcome the appeal.
10.A full power of subpoena for the overview and scrutiny committees of mayoral councils.
I'll stop here, but you get the point. Such change is far in advance of the Government’s agenda and requires an entirely new constitutional settlement between the centre and the localities.
Indeed, it rests on mayoral local government being just that: a government, with political powers extending beyond responsibilities for the provision of services. It rests on muscular localism.
So the message to councillors is: if you want more powers and responsibilities for your council,here's how you get it – by becoming a mayoral council - if you don't, then you have the leader system to get on with.
On a related matter, outcries of horror have also been sounding about another chance for voters to directly elect to an executive office. Many have shown their contempt for the voters with old and tired arguments against what is a bold move of directly electing Police Commissioners, the opposition to which is often a thinly veiled reflection of the arguments that were used against women having the vote.
It is amazing how so many who regularly bang on about accountability, democracy, citizen engagement, empowerment and devolution, become raging reactionaries when the discussion turns to the public being able to 'vote' for someone who can make decisions.
All sorts of obfuscatory tactics are employed to divert from the idea that the electorate should be allowed to choose who will do the real choosing about the very important stuff.
It's not about politicising the police; for heavens sake, the organisation through which a state enforces (sorry, services) law and order is already, by its very nature, politicised, which happens automatically when one 'polices' society – the question is really about democratisation and direct accountability and who does those things – politicians that have been elected by a small number of other politicians or appointed by government – or the people.
Sorry to sound very naive, but as someone living in a democracy I believe in the people choosing. The solution to the problem of direct election is simple: political elites, locally and nationally, should stop the paternalistic, patronising and out-dated approach to politics that is based on the idea that the politician knows best and has the monopoly of wisdom and virtue; trust the voters as much as you say you do (in public, at least); and, recognise that in a democracy the people have the right to choose options that the political insider doesn't like.
Colin Copus is professor of local politics in the Department of Politics and Public Policy at De Montfort University