Democracy Matters phase 2: analysis of responses

2. Powers

The first section of the Democracy Matters Phase 2 consultation invited participants to consider what powers communities should have. The most prevalent themes evident in responses mirrored the discussion in the Democracy Matters Phase 2 consultation paper, covering the power to act on behalf of a community, take over specific functions, direct budgets or employ staff, and collaborate with neighbouring communities and other bodies. Considerations for what powers communities should have overlapped across Question 1 and Question 2, with some participants noting they were unsure what powers communities already had.

Question 1: How could your community use the types of powers set out in the future scenario box to achieve its ambitions, now and into the future?

Question 2: What other powers should be added, and are there some which should be retained by existing decision-makers?

Beneficial community powers

Making decisions for the community

There was considerable support for communities to have a greater say in issues affecting their local area. Although not all used the specific phrase, this often encapsulated the principle of subsidiarity, where public bodies, community decision-making bodies and the people who work for them must feel empowered to make decisions and resolve issues at the lowest possible level.

Participants in some facilitated conversations highlighted that the geographies currently covered by public bodies are often too large and contain many disparate communities with different needs and priorities, suggesting these communities could be served better by smaller decision-making units. A few other participants expressed dissatisfaction with what they perceived to be increased centralisation of decision-making and location of services, for instance, having to travel long distances to receive medical treatment or believing that rural areas were not considered in decision-making.

Therefore, many advocated for changes to the distribution of power at the local level, specifically for community decision-making bodies to have the power and autonomy to tailor local solutions to their specific needs and contexts, allowing for greater flexibility and responsiveness. For instance, Dumfries and Galloway Council suggested that a decision-making body should have the flexibility to decide how best to use its resources, with no ring-fencing. Social Enterprise Scotland and others suggested that if people could make choices that positively impact their communities, it would encourage further engagement.

"I like the idea of communities being given powers over the development of specific projects e.g. the redevelopment of a park that has been closed or has fallen into poor condition." – Individual

There was agreement that communities should be more centrally placed in local decision making. Participants felt this could be achieved by requiring public bodies to implement decisions made by community decision-making bodies, including community council representation in community planning partnerships or tendering processes, and making all decisions subject to referendum. For instance, those in the conversation hosted by Highland TSI felt digital voting via an app should be used to decide where money is spent.

Some commented on how greater powers could be allocated to communities; community wealth building and place-making initiatives were felt to be helpful models that could be developed further. For instance, the Scottish Borders Council cited their place-making programme in four towns and over 50 communities across the region developing place plans. Others suggested that powers could be used to initiate community development plans and powers linked to the Community Empowerment Act could be more fully realised, such as taking on assets. For instance, Glasgow's Empowerment Communities Consortium felt there was value in compulsory purchase powers for vacant and derelict land and buildings and to challenge the impact of developers looking to 'land-bank' for the future. The Common Weal's response presented their preferred alternative approach to local governance that involves public ownership of core elements of the economy such as water, energy and transport.

SCDC called for a local democracy bill to build on existing statutory duties for community engagement and empowerment that left 'no doubt that the expectation is for these duties to deliver rights for communities to have significant and undisputable opportunities to influence the local implementation of service priorities.' They also advocated introducing a 'democratic toolbox' of core and optional powers. Core powers would be available to all communities and include more influence over local services and plans, reviewing or developing strong anchor organisations or networks and engagement duties on local authorities. Optional powers would be more related to specific services, functions or facilities communities should control.

Some participants suggested that opportunities to use new powers could be small at first and grow as local capacity improved. One individual felt the Scottish Government could support development trusts in employing professionals to help them undertake larger than usual projects.

"Groups that start small shouldn't hit a ceiling "that's all that you can do", but at the same time, shouldn't be expected to jump in the deep end. There needs to be opportunities for people to start at the level they feel comfortable and develop." - Conversation hosted by Carluke Community Development Trust

Financial powers

The next most prevalent theme regarding powers was the need for powers to manage budgets, finances, and resource distribution. There was considerable debate around how community decision-making should be funded, particularly the funds provided by central and local government, which is covered in detail in Chapter 8.

"Power to direct can enable our community budget to be focused on what we require in our community." – Conversation hosted by Shine Your Life Community

"There was general agreement that any new powers should involve the ability to direct spend, or to hold independent budgets. Community councils could be empowered by having better budgets, which could be akin to previous district councils in scale. Community councils could have powers to distribute a proportion of devolved locally authority budget to stimulate local projects." - West Kilbride Community Initiative and Community Council

"These communities could use powers to direct associated budgets for example for an improvement to infrastructure, better parking control and waste recycling." – Conversation hosted by Dowanhill, Hyndland and Kelvinside Community Council

It was frequently noted that if additional powers or functions are delegated to local communities, the same or greater funding as is currently needed should be provided to support delivery. Illustrating this point, Common Weal cautioned against what they termed 'policy dumping', i.e. allocating greater responsibilities without sufficient resources to enable effective delivery. Various suggestions were made regarding how (and how much) money should be distributed to communities, including through third-sector interfaces, directly from local authorities or through community benefit funds. Similarly, a range of approaches were suggested to enable greater financial decision-making by communities, notably participatory budgeting, discussed in Chapter 4.

Other participants commented on the need for powers to fundraise or for community decision-making bodies to be given borrowing powers. For instance, the Development Trusts Association Scotland (DTAS) and others suggested visitor levies or 'tourism taxes' to attractions or accommodation could provide a potential source of community funds. They also highlighted that development trusts or community councils in some rural areas currently administer renewable energy schemes which have become important sources of income.

Collaborating with other communities or organisations

Several participants identified the benefits of working closely with other communities or organisations. These included being better able to address perceived gaps in service provision, such as for minority groups or young people, generating economies of scale, and pooling and sharing skills and knowledge. Jambo! Radio CIC highlighted that some communities, such as ethnic minority groups, do not necessarily have a geographical basis but rather are communities of interest; therefore, it was necessary to work across multiple locations.

Collaboration was also considered important for larger-scale initiatives requiring greater resources, such as running a community centre. Social Enterprise Scotland suggested that communities could collaborate to tackle larger challenges, maximising their collective impact. SCDC felt that communities should be given the power to review or develop stronger anchor organisations or anchor networks. They felt:

"This is essential to ensure that they are effectively represented by representative, accountable organisations and processes. In this sense, it is the bedrock of further local democratic development." - SCDC

The Common Weal advocated for a model that encouraged joint working, potentially even future mergers, between organisations.

"[Our suggested community decision-making body should]… be free to set up a 'Town Manager's Office'… to give them the capacity to deliver the work programmes they develop. These would be delivered through a mixed model which would include working with the Regional Councils, Town Manager's Offices, local voluntary organisations, social enterprises, development trusts and local businesses…In time the case for mergers between existing local authorities to create genuinely regional authorities should be explored." – The Common Weal

"However, DTAS, while recognising the benefits of collaboration, highlighted the need to ensure that larger scale multi-agency initiatives and collaboration continue to listen directly to communities. Local democratic bodies can be thought of as part of an extended network, able to collaborate to achieve mutual aims, and on larger projects such as economic, physical and health infrastructure. This networking allows for sharing of skills, best practice and knowledge. Currently, these networks do not function leading to examples where decisions made as part of City/Region deals for example, feel increasingly remote from the people they affect, do not work for local communities and are out of reach of public scrutiny. Collaborative arrangements would need to deal with the complexity of multi-level governance and build in transparency and accountability at all levels." - DTAS

Greater involvement in service delivery

Participants described a desire for communities to have more control over a wide range of public services. However, it was not always clear whether communities wished to have complete control of these services or simply to have a greater say in decision-making and priority-setting.

Transport and the environment were frequently mentioned. Transport suggestions covered enforcing parking restrictions, running community-led public transport, and repairing roads. Environment suggestions included managing parks and natural spaces, controlling fly-tipping and litter, and allotments and waste management.

Other suggested services where communities could play a greater role included housing and planning, health and social care including GP practices, youth activities and schools, community safety and licensing, managing libraries and leisure centres and providing enhanced community transport and services for older people. However, participants rarely gave details about how communities could be more involved in delivering these services or how they would operate in practice. The Poverty Alliance highlighted that poverty, racism and inequality were concerns in local communities and should be considered across all issues and service delivery. A small number wished for powers to take over assets or land management and to manage community hubs.

"The sight loss community could have powers to clearly state what is required in terms of their needs – this might be a national influence in terms of physical infrastructure, e.g. signage/train announcements/materials etc – everyday things that present barriers to participation." – Forth Valley Sensory Centre

"Having powers to raise local issues and suggest responses and solutions could involve general and specific powers. For example, we know that health and social care are under pressure and local people could discuss and plan local solutions to save travel and provide local initiatives. We have under-used community facilities and a population with lonely people who would benefit from being with others with similar interests." - Individual

Discussions on planning powers occurred during the Rutherglen, Skye and Duns facilitated conversations. Participants called for communities to have powers of veto over planning applications, greater control over investment development approvals, greater decision-making powers on wind turbine planning and greater planning powers for facilities such as nurseries, care homes, museums, parks and libraries. In the Easterhouse facilitated conversation it was suggested that more support could be given to housing associations through subsidies to support building of affordable housing and for local authorities to provide unused land to housing associations.

Sharing powers

Around a third of participants who commented on the distribution of powers described how community organisations and existing bodies could share power. Several suggestions were made, such as gradually devolving powers to communities over time, or community organisations working in partnership to deliver services. In these cases, it was not uncommon for participants to comment on the need for an improved relationship between communities' existing decision-making bodies. This is discussed more in Chapter 5.

"Might there be the possibility of existing decision-makers sharing power with a community mentor that may be a specific community led organisation or decision-making group identified through some kind of democratic process? The decision maker would meet on a structured basis with the community mentor that would be recompensed for their role. Together, they would explore the issue, potentially calling on other local expertise or knowledge, and agree an optimum response or line of discussion/debate which the decision-maker then takes to the formal decision-making meeting. Initiatives like Children and Young People's Cabinets may provide some experience or learning around how to practically share power." – Foundation Scotland

Retention of powers by public bodies

Retain all substantive powers

Where opinions were expressed about what powers should be retained by existing decision-makers, the prevailing view was that they should keep most or all powers. Reasons related to more significant or complex services or larger areas being better managed by larger bodies, or service delivery would be more reliable.

"There are some decisions that need to be taken by national or local authority organisations where they have the overview, regulatory framework, expertise and are aware of the big picture on issues that affect communities. The existing institutions that have this overview should retain it and be responsible for statutory provisions." – Conversation hosted by Forth Valley Sensory Centre

Some suggested negative impacts could occur if communities oversaw services. Examples included decisions being taken that were not in the interests of communities, such as funds being diverted from waste services, leading to bins not being emptied, or services being delivered by 'well-meaning' but ineffective or transient volunteers. Another reason was that elected decision-makers were democratically voted for and accountable.

Only certain powers should be retained by public bodies

Others felt that public bodies should only retain certain powers. Most commonly, major infrastructure such as utility management, broadband and cabling, and regional transport networks were cited as areas that should be retained. It was felt these required centralised planning and coordination that went beyond the scope of individual communities.

A similar number felt wider financial powers should be retained, such as economic policies, taxation, budgeting and management of funding priorities and allocations. A few specified other services provided by public bodies that should be retained including housing, education, health and social care, licensing and public buildings. Where reasons were given, these included maintaining stability, consistency and prosperity, avoiding confusion and ensuring legislative compliance.

No change needed

Some expressed a view that the powers already available to community organisations are either adequate or not currently being used effectively. For instance, Uphall Community Council felt the present powers were sufficient. Those in the conversations hosted by Dumfries and Galloway LGBT, along with SURF, felt there were already too many powers at community level with insufficient funds to back up and use the powers they had. Three local authorities called for greater investment and focus on existing structures and initiatives instead of creating new community structures.

No powers should be retained

A small number felt that a principle of no powers being retained by public bodies should operate. For instance, the Common Weal suggested that to practice a culture of subsidiarity, the maximum relevant powers should be devolved to the lowest level of government, including tax-raising abilities and full financing from the central government. One individual felt that if no powers were specifically retained, it would prevent complacency, improve accountability, and ensure a better quality of service. Those participating in a conversation hosted by the Mental Health Foundation suggested that

existing decision-makers should hold certain powers until communities are empowered and ready to assume them.