Local Government

The value and necessity of our green spaces and natural assets

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Rebekah Roebuck

Witton Lakes, Stockland Green, Birmingham: Photo by Tom Roebuck

Open spaces, whether green spaces (e.g. parks or forests), blue spaces (e.g. canals or rivers) or grey spaces (e.g. urban squares) have long been understood to be of great importance and value to society. Be it the creation of the Porticus Pompeiana in Ancient Rome or the wider opening of the Royal Parks to the public in the UK throughout the 1800s, the connection between open spaces and society’s wellbeing is complex but enduring. However, with the increase in financial precarity across local government, their status and quality may be at risk. This blog emphasizes the value of citizen relationships with open spaces using flash ethnographic research from four cities across the world, including the role of community organisations before considering potential impacts of local government finances for green spaces in Birmingham.

Norval Foundation, Cape Town, South Africa: Photo by Lauren Richards

Open spaces entail a wide range of places, including recreational facilities, public parks, heritage sites, beaches, and public squares. On an individual level, citizens around the world connect with local open spaces for a variety of often highly contextual and personal reasons. Open spaces can be places where people connect with heritage, with art and culture, developing a sense of self and connecting with the environment they live in. They are spaces we might use alone but can also act as hubs for community building and socializing.  We may choose to visit a park for a few hours, stay at a beach all day, or simply sit outside in public squares during lunch breaks.

Central Business District, Nairobi, Kenya: Photo by Saina Kiprotich

Some of our open spaces are treasured and achieve status such as becoming a UNESCO world heritage site. One such example is in Morocco, where Chellah, an ancient archaeological site and fortified necropolis, is listed and protected by the Moroccan authorities, and well maintained so visitors can feel safe and secure while enjoying the natural beauty and historical significance of the area. The standard, cleanliness and perceived safety of an open space impacts the desire of local residents to use it. In many places, including Birmingham, Nairobi and Cape Town, the standard of open spaces varies significantly, with more affluent neighbourhoods often having better maintained spaces

but some are simply ‘left behind’, neglected, or subject to fly tipping or dumping, causing visual pollution, and spoiling open spaces.

Chellah, Rabat, Morocco: Photo by Ilias Defaa

This lack of equality around green space access is well recognised by Birmingham City Council, who have a 25-year City of Nature Plan, with an ambition to be recognised as a city of nature, with the Birmingham Future Parks Accelerator Project developing an environmental justice map of the city by ward with ‘access to green space’ comprising one of the factors that generates the score, the first local authority in the UK to develop a tool to measure environmental justice.

The relationship we have today with our open spaces is gaining focus both here in the UK and globally. Increased attention to climate change, the importance of biodiversity and the value of open spaces as assets which can help with climate mitigation and adaptation is growing, alongside the intrinsic benefits to local people and communities.

However, despite this growing recognition, and plans such as the BCC City of Nature Plan and the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA)’s five year Natural Environment Plan, funding for parks in the UK has been cut significantly. The State of UK Public Parks 2021 report published by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) found that the UK has lost a total of £690 million funding for parks between 2011-2021, providing ‘woefully inadequate’ funding for local authorities.

Community groups, such as in Birmingham, often provide support voluntarily alongside accessing grants not available directly to local authorities to improve and develop the space for use. Birmingham Open Spaces Forum coordinate and support the 130+ ‘Friends of’ and other community groups across Birmingham that caretake and protect not only those spaces that seem traditional to open spaces; parks, fields and gardens, but also litter pick in the streets, and maintain other smaller patches of ‘green’, which some may overlook, but are of equal importance. Cotteridge Park in the south of the city provides a gold star, ‘Green Flag’ awarded example of the success possible with volunteers.

‘The Shed’ at Cotteridge Park, Birmingham: Photo by Rebekah Roebuck

The value of open spaces is not always easy to quantify. However, under the concept of natural capital, there is an increasing drive to define a financial value on the services provided. Birmingham’s 600 blue and green spaces (over 4,700 hectares (47 Km2), not to mention the famed ‘more miles of canals than Venice’), is estimated by Birmingham Future Parks Accelerator to be worth around £11 billion, with £4 billion linked directly to the wellbeing of its residents.

In the light of Birmingham City Council’s proposed service cuts, including city operations which includes responsibilities for parks, the role that community groups play in the protection, maintenance and guardianship of our green spaces feels even more critical. BOSF are backing the ‘Save Birmingham’ Campaign, formed in response to concern about the prospect of a ‘fire sale’ of vital spaces. They are asking local residents to nominate spaces and other facilities as an “asset of community value”, to demonstrate the public support for these and with a view to potentially developing further co-operative solutions for spaces in the future.

Be it simply the reduction in servicing and maintaining our parks, to the more serious prospect of the selling off or repurposing of open space assets, it seems likely that despite the recognition of the growing necessity to protect these open spaces, they may be at risk. To achieve environmental justice and equality of access to open spaces in Birmingham, how parks are funded, maintained, and improved must remain a focus for local government.

Rebekah Roebuck is undertaking a PhD on the governance of energy decarbonisation in the Department of Public Administration and Policy at the University of Birmingham. She is also interested in environmental justice, disability rights and community engagement. She can be contacted at [email protected]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebekah-roebuck/

This blog derives from a longer blog on Open Spaces and Mobility published for the University of Birmingham developed via a EUniWell project focused on international collaboration, written by the author alongside Ilias Defaa, Lauren Richards, Nana Amponsah and Saina Kiprotich.

Beyond the Numbers: A Holistic Approach to Section 114 Notices in English Local Government

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Dr Philip Whiteman

In English local government, the issuance of a section 114 notice is often perceived as a dire financial omen, signalling a council’s descent into insolvency. While financial stability is undoubtedly a cornerstone of effective governance, it is crucial to recognize that section 114 notices reveal more than just a precarious financial situation. They serve as a beacon, illuminating underlying issues that extend beyond the confines of spreadsheets and budget projections. Either way, the government’s Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DeLUHC) tends to respond with intervention and the imposition of commissioners to direct the authorities concerned.

The poor financial position of many authorities may be the direct result of years of underfunding by central government and we can expect many more councils to serve section 114 notices, but it would be improvident to assume there are no further underlying causes.

Nottingham City Council’s recent declaration of a section 114 is a clear indication that some authorities are simply folding due to a broken funding formula, but this is not the sole cause of failure in all cases. When looking at other authorities, alternative underlying causes are present. Further examples include:

  • The BBC Panorama programme highlighted how Thurrock Council was rendered bankrupt following a series failed investments in a solar farm, highlighting disastrous procurement practices, lack of accountability, poor governance, and inappropriate delegations to officers.
  • Birmingham City Council’s problems did not emerge overnight and were a culmination of challenges created by a historic equal pay-claim and botched procurement a new IT system, Oracle. Underpinning this was poor financial planning, governance, accountability, and a failing internal culture.
  • Woking Borough Council racked up a deficit of £1.2bn following the building and acquisition of major property portfolio. Against these investments, the authority had acquired loans from the Public Works Loan Board and other local authorities, accumulating debts that it could not service.
  • Liverpool City Council’s woes are not confined to finances. Government commissioners were appointed to Liverpool City Council in June 2021 following a damning Best Value inspection by Max Caller CBE on matters pertaining to poor leadership, unacceptable performance, poor resource management and a failure to engage with citizens.

Government appointed commissioners tasked with overseeing councils in financial distress must adopt a holistic approach, venturing beyond the immediate financial crisis to uncover the root causes of the council’s predicament. This requires a comprehensive examination of the council’s structural framework, external environment, performance management and internal governance practices.

Structural Challenges: A Precarious Foundation

English local governments face a unique set of structural challenges that can hinder financial stability. The relentless rise in service demands, coupled with a funding system that often fails to keep pace, places immense pressure on council budgets. This mismatch between resources and responsibilities can lead to a cycle of overspending and financial strain.

Commissioners must delve into the council’s structural framework, assessing whether the current allocation of resources aligns with the council’s responsibilities. They must also evaluate the effectiveness of the council’s revenue-generating strategies, ensuring they are maximizing their income potential without overburdening residents.

External Factors: Navigating Turbulent Waters

Local governments are not immune to the vicissitudes of the external environment. Economic downturns, shifts in government policies, and natural disasters can all have a profound impact on a council’s finances. Commissioners must assess the council’s vulnerability to these external factors, evaluating its risk management strategies and identifying potential contingencies.

Internal Governance: Cultivating a Culture of Accountability

While structural challenges and external factors can undoubtedly contribute to financial distress, internal governance failures often play a pivotal role. Poor financial planning, inadequate risk assessment, and a lack of transparency and accountability can erode a council’s financial stability.

Commissioners must scrutinize the council’s internal governance practices, ensuring that financial decision-making is sound, risks are appropriately assessed, and accountability is firmly established. They must also foster a culture of transparency, empowering residents to hold their council accountable for its financial stewardship.

A Holistic Approach: Beyond the Financial Storm

In the aftermath of a section 114 notice, commissioners must resist the temptation to focus solely on immediate financial stabilization measures. Instead, they must adopt a holistic approach, addressing the underlying structural, external, and governance issues that contributed to the council’s financial crisis.

By adopting a comprehensive view, commissioners can guide councils towards long-term financial stability, enabling them to deliver essential services to their communities without succumbing to the pressures of insolvency. Only by addressing the root causes of financial distress can we ensure that section 114 notices no longer serve as mere harbingers of financial doom, but rather as catalysts for positive transformation.

Speculating on further interventions

Speculation is precisely that. Estimates vary widely in terms of how many further councils are anticipated declare section 114 notices, but a clear signal of further failures exists:

  • In July 2023, ITV News cited a leaked DeLUHC document which estimated at least 26 bankruptcies over the next two years.
  • The Institute of Government has estimated that 10% of councils are at risk over the next two years.
  • The Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (SIGOMA), a representative body for 47 municipal authorities, published a survey in June 2023 which showed that five of their members were at risk.
  • A Local Government Association Survey conducted in November 2023 revealed that almost one in five local authority leaders and chief executives believe that their authority may have to declare a section 114 notice.

Whilst estimates vary, there is evidence that further authorities will become vulnerable to government intervention via the imposition of DELUHP appointed commissioners.  This raises a final question; can the predicted number of authorities realistically be serviced?

OFLOG: How not to correct a mistake

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Andrew Coulson

The decision to create a new public body to inspect and regulate local authorities is a recognition that it was a major mistake, made by David Cameron soon after he became Prime Minister in 2010, to abolish the Audit Commission. At the time, many of us thought that the government would come to regret it. It is much easier to reform an existing body that to create a new one.

The Office of Local Government will be a Departmental body within Michael Gove’s Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Local Government’.[1]  It will not, as was Audit Commission, be an independent public body. That leaves it wide open to the criticism that it is an extension of the process of central government bossing local government. The point has already been made in an influential report from the Institute of Government.[2]

OFLOG  has already published what it calls draft “metrics” (or performance indicators) for some of the main services.[3] The Audit Commission began identifying performance indicators soon after it was created in 1983. It published its first comprehensive set of indicators for local government in 1992. In 2001 it instituted a process of Comprehensive Performance Assessments for every council, eventually based on more than 1,000 indicators. It used these, along with some qualitative assessments which attempted to assess a council’s ability to plan in advance and respond to crises, to give each council a rating on a scale of 1-5. In 2007 this was simplified, with just 214 indicators and a streamlined assessment where seven separate inspectorates worked together.[4]

This experience showed that there were fundamental problems. Performance indicators give providers very powerful incentives to change their behaviour. But they also give them powerful incentives to game the services, often by increasing spending on aspects that are measured and lowering it for those that are not.

Here are some high-profile examples:

The Police. Former senior police officer Rodger Patrick, in a pathbreaking PhD thesis at the University of Birmingham[5], showed how the West Midlands and other Police Forces gamed the statistics used to assess them: not recording many crimes, increasing clear-up rates by giving favours to criminals who confess (who might or might not have committed the crimes), moving police to parts of the city where the crimes committed can be dealt with relatively easily, and even creating what they claimed was evidence. Crimes were reclassified to reduce the apparent number of crimes in targeted areas.

Hospitals.  Bevan and Hood used data from the National Audit Office to show that an unexpectedly large number of patients arriving in in accident and emergency departments were assessed just before they had waited four hours – thereby not contributing adversely to the per cent who waited longer. One way of doing this was not to record those waiting outside in ambulances or inside on trolleys. Another was to create Informal registers of people on long-term waiting lists, not putting many of them onto the official lists.[6]

Schools.  OFSTED ranks schools as Outstanding, Good, Requires Improvement, and Inadequate. A poor score on any part of the assessment will prevent a school from being recorded as Outstanding. This became very public after a primary school headteacher took her own life when her school was downgraded for failing in its child protection arrangements while scoring highly in nearly all the other parts of its assessment. This case has led to increased awareness that a single judgement on a complex organisation such as a school can often be unfair or misleading when a school is strong in some aspects but less so in others.

These are not the only kind of problem. Another issue is that what is achievable will often depend on the history and geography of a place. Thus an area with many rail stations, or with very wide roads where bus lanes can be created, will find it easier to achieve targets for public transport. Or a city which is a regional centre will have a history of supporting local arts organisations, more so than a district which is not.

The third problem is that there is often duplication with other inspectorates: the Care Quality Commission, Ofsted, the Planning Inspectorate, Police and Crime Commissioners, and many others. Should OFLOT trust these, and not duplicate their work? Or should it follow the practice of the Audit Commission in its later years and work jointly with them, with associated extra costs and hassle?

We illustrate the issues with longer comments on one service, planning, where OFLOG has already produced detailed proposals.[7] I wrote about this in 2007, and the proposals I discussed then are almost identical to those proposed now.[8]  These will judge the effectiveness of planning in an area by the number of planning applications dealt within a target number of days, and the percent of applications overturned after appeals. This does not recognise that the most important work is done well before an application is formally submitted, when an applicant or agent starts talking to officials in the planning department. This may well throw up problems with transport or access; lack of proposals for green space, community facilities or shops; environmental issues about trees or wildlife; and disagreements about densities. The Council will want as many units as possible on a site, and for an application to meet its requirements for social and affordable housing. Moreover, drawings are often inaccurate, computerised images misleading, surveys loaded to favour an application, and designs poor. Good quality advice can make a big difference. But if an application is submitted before these matters have been properly researched, or do not meet the council’s prescriptions (especially for affordable housing), it has to decide whether or not to take it to its committee recommending rejection, or to wait for a more comprehensive submission to arrive. The easiest way to meet these targets is for councillors to approve every planning application uncritically.[9] Developers frequently try to renegotiate targets for social and affordable housing units, on the basis that they cannot afford them. But with only very limited other funding for this type of housing, they are essential almost everywhere. This kind of stand-off will no doubt continue unless and until land values decline to the point where developers can both meet the targets and make money.

In short, the OFLOG draft targets for the planning function are a missed opportunity. What is needed is powers to refuse planning applications that do not include relevant evidence or meet the prescriptions set out in a council’s local plan without wasting the time of the Planning Committee. And targets which explicitly recognise the value of design and quality, and the need for social facilities and open space.

These issues are not confined to planning. At a time of austerity which especially affects the funding of local government, there will inevitably be many situations where councils are struggling to deliver services of the quality that they would like. In such situations, inspectors do not contribute much by pointing this out. Rather they need to act as advisors, or expert external friends, who assist councils making the most of what they have.

Andrew Coulson was an INLOGOV staff member for 25 years. For 14 of those years he was also a Birmingham City Councillor where for a time he was a member of the Development Control Committee as well as the Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

[1] Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities and Office for Local Government Understanding and supporting local government performance. Policy Paper, July 2023

[2] Rhys Clyne and Stuart Hoddinott   What does the Office for Local Government need to succeed? Institute for Government, July 3023  https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-07/What-does-Oflog-need-to-succeed.pdf

[3] Office for Local Government Next steps for OFLOG and draft metrics, October 2023 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/653a74cf80884d0013f71be1/Office_for_Local_Government_-_next_steps_and_new_draft_metrics.pdf

[4] Andrew Coulson “Targets and Terror: Government by Performance Indicators. Local Government Studies Vol.35, No.2 pp.271-81, 2009

[5] For a summary, see Rodger Patrick,“A web of deceit: Police Crime Statistics for England and Wales”, in  John Eterno, Arvind Verma and Eli Silverman (eds) How Countries Count Crime: An Exercise in Police Discretion Taylor and Francis, 2022, pp.170-219

[6] Bevan, G and Hood, C “What’s Measured in What Matters: Targets and Gaming in the English Public Health Care System”. Public Administration Vol.84, No.3, pp.517-38

[7] Office for Local Government Next steps for OFLOG and draft metrics, October 2023, pp.5-7

[8] “Don’t Forget the Politics in Planning”. Local Economy Vol.22 No.3, pp.223-6

[9] “Targets and Terror: Government by Performance Indicators.” Local Government Studies Vol.35 No.2, 2009, p.279

4-Day Weeks Improve Productivity: It’s time to roll them out

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Andrew Coulson

Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/carrienelson/

Until recently South Cambridgeshire Council was mainly known for being the only council in the UK which completely encircles another council, the City of Cambridge.

Now it has a place in history for a more lasting reason.  In January this year it began a trial which put much of its workforce onto a 4-day week, asking them to do in four days what previously they had done in five, for the same pay and without employing extra staff or reducing opening hours for the public.

Michael Gove took exception, and in October his Department issued non-statutory guidance which made it clear that he does not want councils to implement four-day weeks[1]. His junior minister, Lee Rowley, wrote to the Council in June and again in September asking it to abandon its trial.[2]  But the terms and conditions of council employment are not the business of central government, and to that extent the Council has the right to continue. Then, on 3 November, a senior civil servant wrote to the Council ordering them either to stop the trial, or to supply him with regular detailed information about their performance.[3]  To do this he invoked the concept of “Best Value”, also used in the Guidance note, claiming that the pilot means that the Council is not giving value-for-money to its taxpayers.

A bit more about South Cambridgeshire Council. 35 of its 45 councillors are LibDem, including its Leader, Councillor Bridget Smith. It provides services in the small towns and villages around Cambridge, working closely with the city council on matters that affect them both, such as sensitive planning proposals. 162,000 people lived there in 2021. House prices and average incomes are high, and it is one of the best places in the country to live. The council was and still is one of the best-performing in England.

The pilot is being evaluated by the Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge. After nearly a year, the indications are extremely encouraging.[4]  In 27 October Bridget Smith reported that “sickness rates have fallen by a third, staff turnover has reduced by 36%, and complaints about services involved are down. 9 of 16 areas studied showed “substantial improvements in performance over the previous year”. The council has been better able to recruit staff, and now has 14 fewer “interim managers” recruited through an agency on a short-term basis and paid much more than normal local government rates, but seldom living in the area and with little long-term commitment to it. This has saved the Council considerable sums of money.[5]

These positive outcomes should not surprise civil servants, other researchers or Mr Gove. It is backed up by other research, for example a recent Fabian report about what the UK can learn about shorter working weeks from Germany.[6] Or research carried out in 2022 by a large team of experts in England and America led by the consultancy Autonomy.[7]  This studied 61 UK businesses which have implemented shorter working weeks in a variety of changes (such as having lower staffing on Mondays and Fridays with half the employees working on either the Monday or the Friday in any week). In almost all these companies the shorter working week improved productivity, staff recruitment and morale.

“Best Value” was invented in the 1980s when it was realised that the best outcomes would often not be achieved by paying the lowest prices. We do not get our cars serviced at the cheapest garages, or our roofs repaired by the cheapest contractors. We prefer someone we know, or who comes with good recommendations who will want to work with us in future, and so will not take short cuts, use poor quality parts, or put sufficient cement in its concrete. To make an informed decision, you also need information about the quality of other work done by the possible contractors. If you do not have that information, then you need to contract for a short period, and learn from the results. Many councils, with all types of political control, were able to demonstrate that Best Value was obtained by keeping a service in-house, not using external contracts.[8]

In this context, the invocation of Best Value reeks of despair: Gove’s civil servants cannot think of any other way to stop the trial. He may fear that other councils who adopt the same policies may not get the same benefits. But if South Cambridgeshire ever gets tested in a court of law, there is a strong probability that the Government will lose.

This is not the only recent populist announcement: Ricki Sunak announced at the Conservative Party Conference that he is trying to make it impossible for councils to introduce 20 mph zones in residential areas, even though this is a popular policy (not least among many car drivers) which saves lives and reduces pollution.[9]  He is also attempting to limit the number of low-traffic neighbourhoods[10] and has directed councils not to introduce multiple recycling bins, even though it is cost-effective for homeowners and businesses to sort as much of their waste as possible in advance.[11] He does not appear to recognise that councils are local authorities whose legitimacy comes from elections, and which can experiment and try out new ideas. They have a great deal more practical experience to draw upon than he does, or his civil servants.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/four-day-working-week-arrangements-in-local-authorities

[2] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/four-day-week-trial-2/

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/south-cambridgeshire-district-council-best-value-notice

[4] https://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s131267/Appendix%202a%20Bennett%20Institute%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20KPIs%20final.pdf

[5] https://www.scambs.gov.uk/four-day-week-trial-extension-after-independent-analysis-shows-services-maintained-and-some-improved

[6] https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/231106_Nein-to-Five_EN_final_online-6-nov.pdf.  Or https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/surprising-benefits-four-day-week/ . Or from the World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/surprising-benefits-four-day-week/

[7] https://autonomy.work/portfolio/uk4dwpilotresults/

[8] See, for example, statutory guidance issued in 2011 when Eric Pickles was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7968ab40f0b63d72fc591f/1976926.pdf. Or articles in Andrew Coulson (ed.) Trust and Contracts: Relationships in Local Government, Health and Public Services, Policy Press, 1998.

[9] https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-to-block-councils-imposing-new-20mph-speed-limit-zones-12972106

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/30/rishi-sunak-orders-review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhood-schemes

[11] https://resource.co/article/government-scraps-seven-bins-simpler-recycling

Andrew is a nationally-recognised expert on scrutiny in local government and is particularly interested in governance by committee. He is a columnist for the Birmingham Post and associate of INLOGOV. He writes in a personal capacity.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/four-day-working-week-arrangements-in-local-authorities

[2] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/four-day-week-trial-2/

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/south-cambridgeshire-district-council-best-value-notice

[4] https://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s131267/Appendix%202a%20Bennett%20Institute%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20KPIs%20final.pdf

[5] https://www.scambs.gov.uk/four-day-week-trial-extension-after-independent-analysis-shows-services-maintained-and-some-improved

[6] https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/231106_Nein-to-Five_EN_final_online-6-nov.pdf.  Or https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/surprising-benefits-four-day-week/ . Or from the World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/surprising-benefits-four-day-week/

[7] https://autonomy.work/portfolio/uk4dwpilotresults/

[8] See, for example, statutory guidance issued in 2011 when Eric Pickles was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7968ab40f0b63d72fc591f/1976926.pdf. Or articles in Andrew Coulson (ed.) Trust and Contracts: Relationships in Local Government, Health and Public Services, Policy Press, 1998.

[9] https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-to-block-councils-imposing-new-20mph-speed-limit-zones-12972106

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/30/rishi-sunak-orders-review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhood-schemes

[11] https://resource.co/article/government-scraps-seven-bins-simpler-recycling

Voter ID – Part 2: How poisoned, how curative?

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Chris Game

In the Electoral Reform Society’s recent review of the King’s Speech the first “conspicuous omission” identified, ahead of democratically reconstituting the Lords and electoral reform, was the repeal of Voter ID – “an unnecessary step backwards for our democracy and should be scrapped before it causes any more damage”.  Though I’m an ERS member, that’s not my personal view – as I’ve previously indicated, here and elsewhere – which is partly why I embarked on what has become a two-part blog, of which this is the second and – I promise! – final instalment.

Rationalising post hoc, the first part summarised the key data – published mainly by the Electoral Commission in its June Interim Analysis of the Voter Identification returns from Returning Officers, its September Demographic Analysis Research, plus its specifically Voter ID-related policy-and-practice recommendations. This second instalment covers, or at least references, some of the varying and more eye-catching reactions to all these data.

The first of which – partly for its comprehensiveness, but also because it provided the blog’s chosen title – is the early September review published on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) of senior MPs and Peers on Democracy and the Constitution and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. Undertaken by a cross-party panel chaired by Jon Nicolson (SNP), its four main conclusions were that:

  1. The voter-ID system, as it stands, is a “poisoned cure”, disenfranchising more electors than it protects. It quotes the well publicised statistic of there having been just eight convictions/cautions for personation in person since 2013, plus that detailed in the earlier blog of more than 14,000 possibly entitled voters having been turned away by ‘greeters’ in May before even entering the polling station – sufficient, arguably, to have swung the result of up to 16 constituencies in the 2019 General Election.
  2. The regime’s inherent ambiguity creates a real risk of injustice and potential discrimination.  Most obvious – “shamelessly obvious” to quote the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee in her coverage of the topic – was the selection of documents acceptable as ID, discriminating particularly, but not only, against young persons: Oyster 60+ passes [requiring proof of name and address] acceptable, but not student IDs, library cards, bank statements, etc.  The panel also noted that “independent observers” had recorded evidence of racial and disability discrimination at polling stations, with “non-white people being turned away even when they had qualifying ID, while some white people were permitted to vote without showing ID at all.”
  3. The regime lacks the flexibility necessary to avoid injustices – being over-reliant on decisions made by polling clerks and presiding officers, against which there is no formal right of appeal.
  4. The problems identified are systemic, but not fundamental – meaning that, with targeted reforms, the voter-ID regime can, as in many other states, be an asset to UK democracy. That was my emphasis, and, for what it’s worth, with all Europe and almost all developed countries requiring in-person voters to use photo ID, the panel give less emphasis to this point than I would have. A corollary of that point, however, is that these countries have polling station staff familiar with the demands of voter ID, and there is growing evidence of the need to address with some urgency the recruitment, training and retention of electoral staff.   

Overall, the panel’s conclusion is that the regime should remain in place, subject to three main structural reforms:

  1. Permit electors to ‘cure’ a failed ID check by utilising an existing mechanism in UK law and signing a declaration attesting to their identity and right to vote (as in Canada).
  2. Broaden the range of accepted identification documents and in doing so set clear criteria for deciding which forms of ID are accepted.
  3. Provide better training for polling station officers.

It’s a lengthy production (well over 100 pages, incl. research appendices) and a recommendable one for anyone new to the topic, not least in reminding us how the VID debate was actually kicked off – by a 2010 BBC Panorama investigation, leading eventually to a 2015 High Court case in which Tower Hamlets’ then Labour (and today Aspire Party) Mayor, Lutfur Rahman, was found guilty of involvement in a string of “corrupt and illegal electoral practices”, one of which was ‘personation’.  

Whereupon the Cameron Government instructed its ‘Anti-Corruption Champion’, Sir Eric Pickles, to prepare a report examining electoral fraud – one of whose 50 recommendations was that it should consider options for electors having to produce personal ID before voting at polling stations. Which led in turn to the 2018/9 trials, which reported a degree of increased public confidence in elections where VID was required – but not, as the All-Party review notes (p.9), that “electoral fraud ranked consistently last in public perception of problems around elections” [and administrators’ perception – see table below], or that they are “far more concerned about political funding and the redrawing of constituency boundaries than about personation”.

If the legislation did eliminate personation, the APPG’s view was that this came at the cost of “disenfranchising” electors: preventing or discouraging certain electors from voting – considerably more than the recorded 14,000 or so without ID who failed to return after being turned away by polling station staff. Excluding those turned away by party political ‘meeters and greeters’, this number was considered for several reasons to be “a significant underestimate”.

The democratic cost, in the name of preventing in person personation – occurring, on average 0.88 times p.a. – was to deny at least 14,000 people the opportunity to cast their ballot, which is “unacceptable and unjustifiable”.

Politically, however, the Panel reckoned that even these probably undercounted numbers of non-returnees could potentially impact on a General Election result – two West Midlands examples being Sandwell and Walsall, where 1,135 and 797 electors (respectively) were turned away.

There is, obviously, a great deal more, but almost simultaneously other contributions were appearing on the scene, perhaps most noteworthy being the Local Government Information Unit’s The Impact of Voter ID: The Views of Administrators. Based mainly on a survey of 171 electoral administrators who helped deliver the May 2023 elections, some of these ‘behind the scenes’ views are almost inevitably predictable: that VID is just the latest of the pressures added to the burden of electoral administrators already contending with resource constraints, complex legislation, tight timetables, temporary staff recruitment, etc.; and that a General Election offers an “opportunity for serious disruptions” (p.5).  

Perhaps most striking, though, appearing on the Introduction page (6), but without a word of direct reference, is the following bar chart. The words follow in the remainder of the report: yes, administratively elections in England have serious weaknesses: staffing pressures caused by “short timetables, convoluted legislation, inefficient processes and inadequate resourcing.” (p.11).  Administrators’ question for this research is how voter ID has impacted on these issues, as well as, of course, on “personation in the polling station”.

And my carefully considered conclusion, following this attempted overview of the welter of reports and evaluations that appeared several weeks ago now?  I should have done what I’ve habitually done for years in comparable situations: relied on the House of Commons Library, whose estimable staff – here Neil Johnston and Elise Uberoi – produced a characteristically thorough (and, unlike mine, unopinionated) 59-page Research Briefing covering pretty well everything I’ve attempted to. And, to quote Forrest Gump, that’s all I have to say about that!

Chris Game is an INLOGOV Associate, and Visiting Professor at Kwansei Gakuin University, Osaka, Japan.  He is joint-author (with Professor David Wilson) of the successive editions of Local Government in the United Kingdom, and a regular columnist for The Birmingham Post.

Citizen Assets Transfer in Barcelona: the role of the commons in democratising public administration and public service delivery

/ jlowther2015 / Leave a comment

Dr Marina Pera from Autonomous University of Barcelona is presenting a critical analysis of the asset transfer policies in Barcelona at our next INLOGOV seminar, which starts at noon on Thursday 30th November at our Edgbaston campus.

Marina will examine opportunities and risks raised by citizen management of municipal assets, taking a community empowerment perspective.

Barcelona is a city with a long tradition of neighbourhood associations, community and cultural centres run by citizens. Since the 1970s, in response to citizens’ demands, a number of municipal assets have been transferred to local non-profit organisations with economic support from the City Council.

The transfer of these assets was decentralised to the administrative districts, which in some cases led to practices of co-option and clientelism. In 2015, the Bases de gestió cívica (civic management legal basis) was collaboratively designed and approved: a local regulation that standardises the allotment of assets, increasing transparency on asset transfers. However, the Bases of gestió cívica did not solve some of the challenges that had emerged from the collaboration between the local state and community actors. One of the main challenges was the insufficient adaptation of regulations and administrative procedures to the idiosyncrasies of grassroots organisations with low levels of professionalisation. These place a huge burden on these community groups, who had to invest time and resources in bureaucratic procedures, hindering their original mission and accelerating their de-politicisation. 

In 2016, with the rise of a progressive government in the city of Barcelona, an ambitious policy was approved, the Citizen Assets Programme (CAP). This policy aimed to recognise, support, and consolidate urban commons: spaces and facilities rooted in the community that were apt to be transferred to non-profit organisations in order to be managed democratically. The CAP thus aimed to empower the community and promote citizen participation. This policy entailed greater transparency and legitimacy surrounding the process of asset transfer and the accountability of grassroots and non-profit groups. However, the Citizen Assets Programme has been facing a number of challenges in terms of legal issues, resistance by public officials and scepticism by non-profit organisations.

Despite the difficulties involved in the implementation of the Citizen Assets Programme, it has presented an opportunity for collaboration between the City Council and the commons. The efforts to create an environment of trust and mutual learning among public officials and community groups has allowed the development of innovative administrative instruments that recognise the transformative work of the commons, through innovative public-commons partnerships. This seminar therefore aims to analyse alternative forms of asset management beyond public direct and outsourcing management, engaging in current debates on collaborative culture in public administration, the dismantling of the welfare state and community empowerment.

Seminar details

The re-arranged seminar will run 4-5pm on Thursday 7th December at the University of Birmingham Edgbaston campus in Muirhead room G15. 

Further information, link to attend and registration can be found at the eventbrite. 

Register on Eventbrite