Over the past five years, a quiet transformation has been ta
king place in Britain, as the government has started to decentralise power through devolution deals – with some of the UK’s biggest cities agreeing to take on new powers in return for introducing metro mayors.
The recent Budget brought more announcements, with the new deal for the West of England city regions (including Bristol and Bath) particularly important for improving the UK’s poor productivity. Not everyone is happy with either the process or the speed of these changes, however.
A recent report by the Communities and Local Government select committee, for example, criticised what it described as the “significant lack of public consultation and engagement at all stages in the devolution process”, and questioned whether there would be enough scrutiny of the new metro mayors.
Concerns about the process also prompted Durham County Council to poll local residents about their views on the North East’s devolution deal. While a clear majority of participants backed the agreement, nearly half said the new metro mayor should only be granted limited powers.
This kind of robust public discussion about devolution is important. But we need to ensure debate focuses not only on the flaws, but also on the potential benefits if we get this process right.
Joint research by the Centre for Cities and Institute for Government, for example, showed that metro mayors can play a crucial role in supporting city economies. For a start, they are elected leaders who can take major decisions and make the case for big projects and initiatives to local residents and businesses (who ultimately foot a large portion of costs).
This visibility and representation offers public accountability for projects as they are introduced and implemented. The mayor also has a more informal (but important) role to play in overseeing and bringing together the complicated web of agencies and organisations involved in any large city governance.
During the 16 years that London has had a mayor, for example, he has been pivotal in delivering a number of critical infrastructure projects which otherwise might have struggled – including the congestion charge, the 2012 Olympic Games and Crossrail.
It is true there has been little public consultation. But mayors were part of the Conservative Party’s electoral manifesto, for which the government has a mandate, and the deals are being negotiated between nationally and locally elected politicians. Mayors, too, will be elected – so there is an opportunity for citizens to hold one individual to account for big city-wide decisions. And the new metro mayors are also likely to face high levels of scrutiny – greater than the mayor of London. For example, they will be required to consult the combined authority cabinet on their strategies and spending plans, which can be rejected if two-thirds of the members do not agree with them.
Indeed, when we compare the new mayors with global counterparts – such as Bill de Blasio in New York, or Anne Hidalgo in Paris – it is clear that UK mayors will be significantly less powerful. We may even find in a few years’ time that the discussion around devolution could shift to asking whether UK metro mayors are powerful enough to be effective.
For now, we need to be sure we get the first steps in implementing devolution right. That means that cities that are due to introduce metro mayors urgently need to start having a much more public conversation about what the changes mean. The new mayors will only be in a position to help UK cities punch above their weight in a competitive world if local residents and businesses are involved and engaged in the discussion about what they want from devolution.
Alexandra Jones is the chief executive of Centre for Cities
