Labour Devolution Commission

Our response

SCVO welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation and would like to contribute to the following:

Introduction

SCVO begins this submission by pointing out that to the third sector it is not necessarily important what is devolved and what is not. What is important is that our society, economy and politics improve. Despite years of devolution, there has still been disappointing progress on many important issues. These include the eradication of poverty, improving employment across all regions, and the improvement of care and health services to give patients real control. These are all things amongst others that the third sector cares passionately about and works hard, day-in and day-out, to address. Obviously we recognise that successive Governments are aware of such problems and have all, in their own ways, taken steps to improve them; yet they persist. So it is the resolution of these difficulties that is at the forefront of the third sector’s mind, rather than the intricacies of devolution, independence, or any other settlement. Ultimately, further devolution is about power – with whom does it reside, how can we influence those who hold it, and how can we hold them accountable? Further devolution to remote politicians (local or national) will be a problem if people continue to be denied real access to decision making, and we are glad that the Commission seems to recognise this. We urge them to go further in their reforms, and ensure that citizens across Scotland really obtain the power they need to improve their communities. Rather than answer the specific questions outlined by the Commission, here we highlight some of the issues raised by members of the third sector at SCVO’s recent roundtable on Scottish Labour’s Devolution Commission.

Main themes

Poverty, democracy and the economy are perhaps the three issues that speak loudest to the third sector in Scottish Labour’s devolution paper. As we discussed at the roundtable that SCVO held with Drew Smith MSP and Sarah Boyack MSP, the main issue for our sector is how devolving power (from UK to Scotland, Scottish Government to Local Government, Local Government to local communities) can make a difference to those living in Scotland. The third sector works within European, UK, Scottish and local structures, and so throughout all of the discussion around devolution and the movement of powers, participants felt very strongly that we need to keep in mind exactly what we are trying to achieve. It is essential that powers are transferred for a purpose, not just for their own sake. Ultimately, how can further devolution best support those we work with? All participants were open-minded as to what works best in terms of constitutional settlements. Partnership, trust, and sharing ‘what works’ under whatever form of constitutional structure we end up with, were deemed to be the most important issues.

Positives for both UK and Scottish Government levels of decision-making

Scotland's population means it's a small community which makes it easier for ideas to travel. However at UK level there is a larger melting pot for a wider set of ideas to come forward. Since many of the more contentious issues are currently reserved (for example, those of tax, welfare, and defence), we don’t know whether Scotland has a social democratic consensus. Some participants of the roundtable felt that bringing more taxation powers to Scotland could allow greater accountability and would help to close the fiscal gap, with revenue spent in Scotland raised in Scotland. Devolution down again to a local level would allow different solutions at different geographical areas – for example, local taxation could be set at a local level. A postcode lottery was not felt by participants to necessarily be detrimental – as long as basic standards of public services were met everywhere.

Devolution not just a transfer of powers from UK to Scottish Parliament level

Another issue that came out strongly from the discussions was that devolution should not just be a centralising agenda at Scottish Government level. Rather, what do we want to share at community, local authority, Scotland, UK, and international levels? Where do we want the final decision to be taken, and where do we trust politicians to make the best decision? Of course, devolution down to a local level could pose problems in terms of losing economies of scale, and questions over the capacity of local government and communities to deal with new topics and areas were raised by some participants at the roundtable. During the course of the roundtable, it became clear that devolution to communities would have to be accompanied by support to ensure that all communities would be able to take full advantage of the powers given to them. Furthermore, whilst access to power is an issue, those attending the roundtable felt there is currently a disconnect at every level of government, with those at different levels of power not working as well as they could with those at other levels. Learning how to exercise power effectively and fairly could be improved across Scotland – and perhaps, rather than more devolution, current powers could be better exercised. Linked to this, the issue of enacted legislation needing reviewing to see whether it had been implemented effectively across Scotland was also highlighted.

Possible problem of policy divergence

On a practical level, if we have different powers at different levels, we need to contend with policy divergence when the power brokers at these different levels have different ideologies. Policy divergence can create problems for the third sector – for example, benefits versus welfare provision, energy policy versus transport policy, tax policy versus business support policy, and so on. This is something that participants felt should be considered when exploring the intricacies of devolving particular policies.

Devolution is about power, and holding those with power accountable

Ultimately, further devolution is about power – with whom does it reside, how can we influence those who hold it, and how can we hold them accountable? Further devolution to remote politicians (local or national) will be a problem if people continue to be denied real access to decision making. For government at all levels, devolution must be about creating the right climate for individuals, communities and nations to prosper. Local government and the third sector can both be enablers, working to people’s strengths and focusing on an asset-based community development; it is all about learning to do things better or differently, taking account of the reduced amount of money currently available to us. Attendees were keen to see a ‘devolution of trust’, with people showing a predisposition to trust others and to devolve power to the lowest appropriate level, rather than holding on to power. The third sector has the capacity, knowledge, and the link to communities to reconfigure community engagement and empower people to take full control of their lives. They support the state and public services, often bringing private money to public services that would otherwise not be there. Their contribution to communities should not be underestimated.