Democracy Matters phase 2: analysis of responses

8. Implications for public bodies

The consultation paper asked participants to consider the implications of introducing community decision-making bodies for existing public bodies. This chapter presents and analysis of responses to Question 14b and Question 15. However, several participants focused on how communities might change due to new local bodies; these comments have been included in relevant themes throughout this report. This chapter, therefore, focuses specifically on potential impacts on public bodies.

Question 14b: How could giving this support change the role of councils and public sector organisations?

Question 15: Are there specific additional powers and resources which would help public sector organisations to work effectively in partnership with new community decisionmaking bodies?

How public bodies might change

Participants frequently suggested that as public bodies' responsibilities were reduced and communities took on more decision-making power, public bodies could become more flexible, streamlined, and efficient. This could happen because local people would be more easily able to solve issues affecting them, freeing up public bodies' time for enhanced collaboration and providing more effective support, resulting in improved outcomes for all.

"Giving this support could transform the role of councils and public sector organisations, taking pressure off them by putting the communities at the core of local problem-solving and decision-making. So much wasted time and effort is put into councils attempting to solve local issues which community bodies, and the local residents at the helm of them, could provide solutions to immediately as a result of being local experts on the goings on of their community." – Conversation hosted by Wester Hailes Community Trust

Community councils

Several participants commented on the role of community councils, with positive and negative views expressed. It was felt that community councils should have featured more heavily in the consultation or to be considered as more central to community decision-making. Calls were made for community councils to have an expanded remit, for greater communication about their work, to have access to an investment fund, and to be supported by a clerking system. A few noted the Community Council Schemes would need to be updated and agreed. Conversely, other participants expressed a view that existing community councils are ineffective, have insufficient resources and powers, and that consideration needed to be given to their future.

"What is to happen to existing community councils? They are not mentioned in the document. Are they to disappear – in areas served by a new body, or altogether? Or is the assumption that they will quietly fade away?" - Crossmichael & District Community Council A closer, more collaborative relationship with communities

Some community groups felt that public bodies would be required to take greater consideration of a community's views, to enable them to better understand local needs. It was also suggested that public bodies could engage more with communities and be more proactive in representing their interests to other bodies or levels of government. It was envisaged that public bodies would acknowledge that everybody can contribute and, through care and respect for people's views, would further encourage local participation. Some other participants, including equality groups, felt improvements would occur in enabling open and honest dialogue between public bodies and communities, bringing them closer together to work cooperatively. Potential benefits anticipated by participants included more relevant and responsive initiatives, better representation of community interests, clarity over roles and more sharing of powers and responsibilities. It was also suggested that ensuring public bodies have clear duties and secure funding could help to avoid competition with communities for scarce resources.

Public bodies as facilitators

It was also suggested by some participants that public bodies could act as enablers or facilitators for community decision-making bodies, supporting them as required to build cohesive and inclusive communities. Helping communities manage resources effectively, supporting capacity building, ensuring diverse representation and encouraging participation were suggested as ways that public bodies could assist local bodies.

"They become the integrators, facilitators, co-ordinators, quality controllers, delivery and budget managers of locally joined-up policy, services, facilities, processes and projects." - Individual

For example, in North Lanarkshire an online training and development portal has been developed aimed at Community Board and Local Partnership Team members, informed by a training needs analysis with content created by North Lanarkshire Council's People Resources and Libraries Teams. The Electoral Reform Society suggested public bodies should develop community governance capacity as a key objective, such as providing spaces, technology support, process design assistance, and facilitation.

R2 felt it would be helpful to refer to Carnegie UK Trust's Revisiting the Route Map to an Enabling State to support public bodies' transition to a more facilitatory role. Throughout responses to the consultation there was a sense that a balance was needed between inspiring enthusiasm in communities to get involved and the risk of placing too great a responsibility on communities to deliver services which would be off-putting to people.

"Whilst we advocate for more participative and deliberative democracy delivered at local, community scale, we are also realists about the readiness of communities (and the wider public sector) for this and the need for groundwork introducing community decision-making prior to rolling it out." - DTAS

Taking on a more strategic role

Some participants expressed a view that providing greater support to communities to manage their affairs would mean public bodies would be less burdened and bureaucratic, in turn becoming more efficient and responsive. This could occur through communities delivering services currently provided by local authorities, or quicker decision-making, and it was suggested that this could increase the capacity of public bodies to focus on matters of strategic importance.

"Empowered local democracies mean councils could be dealing with less day-to-day service delivery issues and perhaps playing a higher level, coordinating role, as enablers. This may free up more strategically focused councils to take on more powers from the Scottish Government, and to act regionally, for example across City/Regional Growth deal areas (as they have begun to do in Regional Economic Forums) where collaboration is needed at sub-national scale." - DTAS

A few comments in this strand of discussion highlighted a belief that public bodies should be reduced in size if staff transferred to communities. However, this was seen as advantageous as those transferred staff would be more effective as they would be working solely to address community priorities.

Negative consequences for public bodies

Some raised potential negative impacts for public bodies. These included the possibility of more fraught relations between different levels of government due to contested boundaries between public bodies and communities, the need for more staff to support communities and address issues arising from community action, uneven distribution of resources across communities, and the potential loss of local services. A few other participants suggested that another layer of governance would add bureaucracy and reduce all bodies' ability to tackle critical strategic issues such as climate change.

"We urge careful consideration not just of major change, but of priorities at present. We have concerns about the impact of the devastating cuts being implemented across the board in local government and believe there are too many completely unacceptable losses such as (but not limited to) the number of swimming pool and library closures. There is a case for legislation to preserve quality public services, such as in better defining statutory library provision for example. We have argued for investment in communities, in community wealth building, municipal renewable energy companies and mass municipal retrofitting. Climate action needed in communities also includes adaptation measures, such as flood prevention. All these need strategic decisions, with community implementation. Let's help communities be better involved in and have more influence over these. But let's do it properly and in a way that prioritises the most urgently needed actions – at this stage raising more funds to pay for quality public services." – UNISON Scotland

Support or powers public bodies might need

A shift towards collaboration

As increased collaboration between public bodies and communities was sought by many, it was suggested that this would require improved partnership working, open dialogue and respect, and shared decision-making.

The main suggestion from participants was that public bodies should be required to meet community groups regularly and take account of their views. Other ideas included agreeing on a collaboration process or framework between public bodies and community groups and establishing a Scottish forum for community councils. Collective Leadership Scotland's work, the Place Principle and the Public Bodies (Joint Working)(Scotland) Act 2014 were all highlighted as approaches that could be built upon to encourage a greater shift towards collaboration.

"We concluded that the pathway to fostering stronger partnerships between public sector organisations and community decision-making bodies involves a concerted effort to establish collaborative platforms, promote diversity and inclusion, and improve information accessibility. By embracing these strategies, public sector entities can enhance their effectiveness in working alongside communities, leading to more responsive, inclusive, and impactful initiatives." - The Adelphe Community Outreach

However, participants also noted the need to counteract the potential for conflict or duplication of effort if community decision-making bodies were introduced.

Improved communication and access to information

There was also a desire amongst participants to see improved communication between community decision-making bodies and public bodies. It was frequently suggested that community bodies should be able to receive information on request from public bodies; there should be closer communication with more opportunities for two-way feedback and easier access to officials, including providing names and contacts with relevant expertise. For example, in the Easterhouse facilitated conversation, participants suggested that a funding officer within a public body could be helpful; participants felt that if a funding bid is successful, there is a need for the community group to have a direct contact in the local authority or public body, because otherwise it becomes challenging to find someone who can provide information or take responsibility. Dumfries & Galloway Cycling (or Bike Users) called for improved mechanisms to convey positive feedback to local authorities, highlighting that the current planning system was set up for receiving objections.

Plain English and simplified language were called for, with less use of jargon. For instance, during the facilitated events, participants criticised public bodies for their use of 'government speak', which was perceived as inaccessible for lay people. Language that was not clear and straightforward, or information that was vague and lacking in detail was felt to be exclusionary. In the facilitated conversation in Rutherglen, it was noted that some terms, such as 'consultation' or 'meetings', could be considered intimidating.

Training on working with communities

It was also suggested that public bodies and their staff could benefit from greater training to promote a focus on communities and working with local bodies. It was suggested that community members could also participate in this training so collaborative learning occurs. According to participants development sessions could focus on generating joint outcomes, learning about community development and conflict resolution, and disseminating information on new communication mechanisms. The example of convergent facilitation was given as a helpful way to develop collaborative decision-making. This method involves a group looking beneath the surface to find the essence of what is important to each person and then bringing these together into a set of principles.

"Public bodies should deliver focused workshop consultations practices with locals regularly and identify gaps in participation while aiming to enhance engagement and participation; this could be part of a strategic planning for public bodies: i.e. one system does not fit all, and some ethnic minorities do not represent all locally." - Conversation hosted by BEMIS

"Having a general power that allows the community to act could be a valuable support for organisations. However, from the perspective of public and third sector partners, additional resources would be needed to fully understand the legalities and translate them into tangible realities." - North Ayrshire Community Planning Partnership

More spending on communities

To better support communities, a variety of participants called either for public bodies to be given more resources or suggested they should shift their resources to community decision-making bodies. This may mean diverting money away from historic decision-making centres in large towns and cities, allocating resources to infrastructure bodies such as Third Sector Interfaces and Community Learning Development, and more investment in community engagement and capacity building. There were also calls for more staff to support community action, such as community coordinators, development officers and researchers. The Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland recommended more funding for local planning authorities to ensure practical operational cooperation with communities.

Other comments

Other comments included the need for more accountability of public bodies, such as quality assurance mechanisms, and the potential need for changes in the structures, resources and powers of public bodies given the number of unknowns that may come with change. DTAS highlighted the need to generate a culture of innovation and experimentation and for public bodies to avoid being too risk averse.