Hearing the voices of the unheard

Towards the end of last month, I attended a meeting of the Participatory Budgeting Network, hosted by the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster.

The PB Network is a newly formed body advocating for and leading new learning and innovations in PB. It takes over from the work of the PB Unit, which sadly was forced to close due to lack of funding in mid 2012. The PB Network has a small volunteer steering group and aims to put on learning events, publish policy related papers and stimulate debate on where PB might go next.

You can receive updates of the network via Twitter, Facebook or
LinkedIN

and find resources on PB on the PB Unit’s now archived website: http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk

These are my notes from the opening panel session, titled “Hearing the voices of the unheard”. The issues of inclusivity and equality in democratic participation are something that, like many others, we at Involve are very concerned with. The following thoughts from the panel, which I’ve recorded as faithfully as possible, include a range of useful observations, arguments and reminders for anyone interested in democratic participation.

Here are five things that particularly hit home for me:

Participatory processes can achieve as much, if not more, through their ability to bring people together to discuss, share and take action, as their impact on decision making (though the latter must not be forgotten). PB should be about building a democratic movement – not the distribution of small grants.

Process design is all-important for ensuring people are able to speak and be heard. Effort and resource is required to ensure that power imbalances are overcome.

It’s important to be aware of who the unheard voices are in different contexts. There may be some surprises.

We should be mindful of and challenge participatory processes that are being used to control and appease people, rather than hand over genuine power.

If PB, or any other democratic innovation for that matter, is to make a real impact on power balances, they must be focused on core issues (and budgets) – not scraps on the edges.

Professor Yves Cabannes

Professor Yves Cabannes kicked off the session. He has a large amount of practical experience of participatory budgeting, including as senior adviser to the Municipality of Porto Alegre, Brazil, where PB was first developed.

Yves began by noting that the vast majority of participatory budgeting processes are either thematically or territorially based, and advocated the use of actor based participatory budgeting instead, to hear the voices of the unheard.

Listening to the voices of the unheard, Yves says, can lead you to projects that are very different. For example, he spoke about his experience of a PB process with young people in slums in Brazil who identified that the short length of time school buses would wait at a stop for them to get on meant that the younger ones were pushed and shoved by the older ones to get on. Negotiating a longer stoppage time with bus companies meant the young people arrived at school in a much better state of mind – an outcome that could not have been anticipated before the process.

Yves also spoke about PB being a means rather than an end. For example, he spoke about PB being a pretext for bringing together migrants in Spain, giving them a place where they could speak to and learn from each other.

However, Yves noted that there are a number of ongoing challenges and issues relating to hearing the voices of the unheard through PB. For example, he noted that very little progress has been made on increasing women’s voices in PB, and suggested more effort is required to break the power imbalances.

He also noted that just because people are present at a PB event, does not mean their voices will be heard. It’s therefore important that we create the right conditions for people to feel comfortable to speak.

Another challenge, according to Yves, is to include the voices of the unheard in the implementation of a project as well as the initial decision. The risk is that in the transformation into a project eligible for PB, an idea becomes coopted by those with power. Too often, according to Yves, people are not empowered fully and others take over.

Yves went on to talk about the importance of deliberation in a process, arguing that one of the duties of PB is to open up an opportunity for people to speak and exchange their opinions. For Yves, the deliberative quality of a PB process determines its success. He therefore said he was reluctant about the use of electronic voting in PB and also commented that while technology can be useful, deliberations can be difficult, especially for the unheard, if not face-to-face.

Finally, Yves spoke about the risk that PB is used to keep people in “their ghetto”. PB can maintain segregation and just as well as it can lead to people voice and power. For Yves, PB needs to give people power in their city, not just in their neighbourhood.

Professor Graham Smith

Next up was Professor Graham Smith, a specialist in the theory and practice of democratic innovations at the University of Westminster’s Centre for the Study of Democracy, who responded to Yves’s remarks.

Graham agreed with Yves on the importance of how PB processes are designed; it’s not just an issue of wanting to hear the voices of the unheard, but also about how it’s done. It’s one thing to have people in a room, but it’s another for them to have a voice, and another for them to be heard. Therefore, for Graham, the issue of institutional design has not had enough attention paid to it.

He spoke about how the clever separation of different types of voice that can be found in the Porto Alegre process have been collapsed in the UK; for example, there is no separation between where demands and decisions are made. The best PB processes, according to Graham, are those where somebody has thought very carefully about what space they are creating and why. Asking the question, “how do we design this in order that the voices of the unheard will be heard?”, because it won’t happen by accident.

Graham finished by commenting that we still have a lot to learn from Latin America about willingness to take a risk on different types of institutions.

Cllr Simon Henig

Simon Henig is Leader of Durham County Council. He spoke about County Durham’s experience of implementing PB via its area partnerships.

Simon began by commenting that the formation of the new unitary authority in County Durham in 2009 presented an opportunity to change the way in which public engagement was done. He noted that, in common with other councils, there was a great deal of cynicism from residents about how decisions were made.

The newly formed authority set up 14 area partnerships based on geography decided by local people. Each partnership was given a devolved yearly budget to spend and some chose to hold one-off events with local residents to decide how it was spent. He referred specifically to one area, with a relatively poor population, in which they were surprised by the level of interest: 800 people turned up to the event in the first year and many stayed until the ballots were counted and results announced – something he noted never happens for councilor elections.

Simon also spoke about a process whereby local people were consulted on County Durham’s overall budget, including which services should be protected and which should be saved. While by law the decision has to be made by a full Cabinet, he highlighted that the eventual decision went with what the public had voted for. This, he said, effectively meant that County Durham’s £500 million budget had been allocated by residents.

However, he also noted that only 10-15% of the money spent within an area, is spent by the local authority.

Finally, Simon suggested that there currently exists a political opportunity to embed PB as all of the main political parties have expressed a desire to empower the public and acknowledged problems with the current political system. On the other hand, he recognised that getting politicians to give up power can be difficult and anyone with a budget at the moment will be loath to give it up. However, he also suggested that at a time of austerity, it is perhaps easier to get PB implemented as, for a politician, it is potentially easier to say “because we’ve got difficult decisions, let’s make the public make them”.

Shazia Hussain

Finally, Shazia Hussain, currently service head for localism at Tower Hamlets Council, spoke about her experience of developing and leading the UK’s largest PB process – You Decide! – in Tower Hamlets in 2008 and how they are continuing to develop PB now.

Shazia began by commenting that the unheard are often thought to include the young, BME communities and women, but in Tower Hamlets they had experienced the opposite: those not turning up were white men.

PB has achieved support from politicians across parties and officers alike in Tower Hamlets because it’s been shown to give people an opportunity to be heard. Shazia later commented that when people go into the room and see people engaging in the PB process, then they get it.

For Shazia, PB is not about consultation; it’s about people’s ideas and how to grow them. The question they are seeking to answer in Tower Hamlets is “how do you get people to influence and co-produce on core services?”, recognising that they need citizens to help tackle gritty problems. They are therefore moving from a large to a smaller pot of money, but one that impacts core services.

Finally, Shazia highlighted that working with councillors was key to success, in part because councilors have the networks into local groups and communities.

by Tim Hughes — tim@involve.org.uk

Tim leads Involve’s research into how and why citizens engage, and what participation looks like from their perspective.

Fancy Lunch?

As you will probably know by now, The Big Lunch  (http://www.thebiglunch.com) is a one day get-together for neighbours – a Lottery funded idea from the Eden Project, encouraging people across the UK to come together for a few hours of food, friendship and fun.  The initiative aims to create stronger, friendlier communities in which people start to share things, from conversation and ideas to skills and resources. 

Big Lunches can be big or small and take place in the street, back garden, park or local community venue – anywhere neighbours get together.  Since starting in 2009, thousands of events have taken place each year, with a staggering 8.5 million people participating in 2012 when The Big Lunch was an official part of The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations.  The Big Lunch is inclusive and welcoming; it’s a fantastic opportunity to start new conversations in the community, bringing people from different backgrounds, faiths, and generations together. And research shows it works, with 91% feel closer to their neighbours following the event.

There has been wide spread support from town and parish councils to date, but we’d like to see further engagement in 2013. We know that the initiative creates more cohesive communities and can help with your community and housing strategies -meeting objectives around community engagement and integration. Research shows us that 82% of participants stay in touch with the people they met at The Big Lunch and 61% get involved in further community activity. An interesting report, based on four years’ research by the LGiU (http://www.lgiu.org.uk) will be available to councils soon.

What will you bring to the table?

Devizes Town council  (http://www.thebiglunch.com/partners/star-councils-england.php) encouraged people to get involved with the Jubilee celebrations in 2012 by hosting a free event on The Green. This was a true community event with a real village green flavour involving games and stalls echoing those from Queen Elizabeth’s Silver and Golden Jubilees.
 

The council opened up this event to all local businesses, groups and entertainers and road closures were simplified with all red tape cut.

Church Crookham Parish Council  (http://www.thebiglunch.com/partners/star-councils-england.php) proudly supported The Big Jubilee Lunch, organising its own event where people where people were invited to bring a dish and join in the Best Dressed Teddy Bear competition and admire the home made bunting created by local schools of all their Royal Easter Egg designs. The council actively encouraged people to hold Big Lunches on their streets, and waived all fees for road closures.

The Big Lunch has continued backing from  NALC (www.nalc.gov.uk), LGA (www.local.gov.uk) , DCLG (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government) and the Secretary of State Eric Pickles, who urge councils to support campaign, cut red tape around road closures and simplify the process as much a possible.

This year, The Big Lunch is celebrating the achievements of communities involved to date with The Big Lunch Community Awards. The winners of this UK-wide award will be selected and announced in April, and the initiative is set to generate lots of media attention in its fifth year.

Get involved! Please help encourage more Big Lunches in your area on Sunday 2^rd June 2013 by spreading the word to residents and local community groups and by supporting applications to close roads where possible. ‘Star Councils’ (http://www.thebiglunch.com/partners/star-councils.php) that go the extra mile to support the campaign are recognised on The Big Lunch website (http://www.thebiglunch.com/) and communications.  Council toolkits (http://www.thebiglunch.com/join-in/download-resources.php) with further information and promotional materials, including a ‘Little Steps’ workshop pack to help you organised meetings with the community to discuss the benefits of holding Big Lunches locally are available from the website. (http://www.thebiglunch.com/)

Anyone wanting to organise an event can order a free pack with invites, posters, a planner and much more online. There is also a short film to give you inspiration from the first four years of The Big Lunch. For more information please contact camilla.baker@thebiglunch.com or call 0845 850 8181.

Is it time to get angry?

The traditional view of local (parish and town) councils being cosy talking shops could be shattered by a decision made by the department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) late last year. We are talking about the dreaded CLG u-turn on the localisation of council tax support.

CLG has reduced the local tax base by taking income from council tax benefits away from local councils, requiring them to go cap-in-hand to their district, borough or unitary (principal) council for a share of the government's council tax support grant. There is the very real possibility that the princip council will say, "sorry, we need all we can get to deliver our own statutory responsibilities".

All this comes after CLG gave clear indications in the summer of 2012 that they will take local councils out of the equation on the council tax support grant and that they would receive funds as always. Then suddenly in the winter of last year the department changed their mind and left local councils with holes in their budgets.

Quite rightly local councils are astonished by the brazen disregard of the majority opinion on this by the Government.  On the consultation on this, 94% of respondents said that local councils should be exempt from the impact of localisation of council tax support, but CLG decided they should not. This has caused uproar among England's 9,000 local councils. Eric Pickles MP, secretary of state for CLG, speaking at NALC’s Larger Local Councils Conference in November 2012 (http://audioboo.fm/boos/1093989-eric-pickles-speech-at-nalc-2012.html) brushed off the questions, saying it was up to local councils to negotiate with principal councils. But why should local councils have to negotiate with principal councils on this, it is monies that belongs to them by right.

The new system changes over a hundred years of financial independence of local councils as they will no longer be in charge of their own destiny in setting their budgets and precept. For the first time ever local councils will be reliant on a principal council for an element of their funding. The risk of the new system is at best local councils will receive 100% of grant due, or they may only receive a proportion, and at worst no grant at all. Depending on the scenario, the impact may be mean local councils increasing their precept or cutting back on service delivery.

As practical example of this. In Milton Keynes, the five most affected local councils are Woughton, West Bletchley, Bletchley and Fenny Stratford, Campbell Park and Wolverton and Greenleys. Based on figures calculated in September 2012, the potential loss to these local councils would be £169,000 if Milton Keynes Council were to distribute grants at the cumulative level suggested by the Government. This would represent 68% of the total loss to Milton Keynes local councils and have a huge impact on service delivery in those deprived communitiesm

Now to be fair and balanced, it has not been all disastrous from CLG towards local councils.

In the same speech in Novemeber, Eric Pickles described local councils  as "localism's magic wand". This is very supportive but like in magic acts, sometimes you need to look beyond the 'smoke and mirrors'.

Since the Localism Act became law last year, the Government clearlys sees a role for local councils to be leaders of their communities. So we have had the recent announcement of more money going directly to local councils who have put neighbourhood development plans in place from the Community Infrastructure Levy, as well as the community rights to build, bid and challenge and the encouragement of more devolution of services to local councils.

But all of this new responsibilities and service delivery opportunities does not happen by magic, it needs capacity, skills building and resources. This is where there is a head on collision possibly between rhetoric and reality. This is a dilemna that the Government needs to solve as soon as possible. But at the grassroots level of democracy the anger towards the Government's recent decisions on local government is growing.

Can councils shape communities?

The National Association of Local Councils’ (NALC) Shaping Places conference  last week saw how new exciting opportunities are being presented to very local (parish and town) councils.

The conference showed how local councils can be an even better community leader, encourage communities and members to take advantage of the new planning, housing, community assets protection and development powers that have come their way.

NALC believes that now is a crucial time for localism and local councils have an important role to play in local community action, representation and service delivery.

Eric Pickles MP, secretary of state for Communities and Local Government, said: “Local (parish and town) councils are localism’s magic wand and that local services are at their best when they are run by local people.

“Localism requires local accountability and this is where local councils can provide this democratic mandate.”

He then issued a challenge to local councils by saying: “We are giving you the power, now we are looking for you to deliver.”

At the same conference Communities secretary Eric Pickles told parish councils to rethink average 3% hikes to their council tax precept - which he said are outstripping levies raised by the rest of local government.

Mr Pickles urged local councillors to make sure they are not overburdening residents with increased taxes.

"It hasn't escaped my noticed that, at a time when most districts are freezing their council tax, the average parish precept has gone up by 3%. And the trend is seeing parish increases outstripping the rest of local government," said Mr Pickles.

He added the DCLG (department of Communities and Local Government) was prepared to review principles governing council tax referendums, but demanded parish councillors 'square' any rises with their electorate. 'Can you really look your local folk in the eye?' Pickles asked delegates.

Elsewhere in his speech, the communities secretary said parishes should embrace neighbourhood planning to build proper neighbourhoods, asking them 'to choose activism not Nimbyism'.

Mr Pickles full written speech can be viewed at:https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-value-of-parishes and to listen to his speech please visit:  http://audioboo.fm/boos/1093989-eric-pickles-speech-at-nalc-2012

The secretary of state came under fire in the Q and A session over the Government's apparent U-turn over the localisation of council tax support.

Carolyn Downs, chief executive of the Local Government Association, said: ”The Community Rights legislation is not necessary to improve the relationship between different tiers of local government. It is about getting the culture right and this will led to more service devolution and the giving away of power to communities and local councils.” 

John Findlay, chief executive of NALC, responded: “Power still rest with principal authorities (county, district, unitary and borough) as they have the final decision on the devolution of power and services to the communities and local councils. If localism is really to succeed, then power should go to the local community to make the final decision and not be at the discretion of the principal authority.”

           

Cllr Michael Chater, chair of NALC said: “Localism represents exciting opportunities for local councils but there are many challenges that lie ahead because of capacity and resources issues for these community minded bodies.”

Getting ahead of the fire

Small is beautiful so that is local parish and town councils taken care of. But what if you are large. Well making the case for large local authorities was the County Councils' Network at their annual event.

They took their cue from St George's Park (Football Association's Centre of Excellence) and promoted good practice amongst county councils but they were in mutinous moods with regards the department of Communities and Local Government.

Ministers came under fire this week from county leaders who accused them of overseeing a ‘pro-district’ agenda.

In angry exchanges at the County Councils Network conference, the leaders accused local government minister, Brandon Lewis, and DCLG secretary, Eric Pickles, of failing to understand the impact of benefit changes, the council tax freeze and a late grant settlement.

In a question-and-answer session with Mr Lewis, East Sussex leader Cllr Peter Jones claimed MPs saw the world through the eyes of district councils because their constituencies were coterminous.

Cllr Jones claimed that the New Homes Bonus and business growth incentive bypassed counties.

Buckinghamshire CC leader Martin Tett said his county needed to find £2m to fund the shortfall in council tax benefit when payments were localised from next April.

There was applause when another county leader complained at the late grant settlement this year.

Mr Lewis, a former leader of Brentwood DC, said: ‘We’re very aware that counties have a hugely important role.’

He said the finance settlement, which he indicated was now due on 17 December, was delayed because of the late Autumn Statement on 5 December.

In the Conservative leaders’ group meeting, both he and Mr Pickles came under fire over plans to freeze council tax for two years with a 1% grant. Leaders warned it reduced their tax base.

Later, Mr Pickles told delegates he expected the 2013/14 settlement to be ‘moderately difficult’. He joked: ‘Think of a very low number and halve it. Next year we’ve got to get serious about joining up functions,’ he warned.

A dozen counties are considering pooling business rates with their districts to keep more of their business rate growth income.

NALC’s chairman, Cllr Michael Chater, at the conference said:  “Growth and economic prosperity is just about the biggest challenge facing our country right now, and as one of the themes for this conference will have been much discussed by councillors and officers alike.

“How local government at all levels can play its part in delivering the type of growth that our communities and nation needs, while balancing the protection and preservion of the environment, is a severe test. But is a test I know local government will not shirk. Furthemore it is a test where I know many parish and town councils are stepping up to plate.”

　

“Take Sevenoaks Town Council in Kent, who for the past four years have focussed on developing its local economy, with the emphasis on establishing Sevenoaks as one of Kent’s foremost towns to visit and enjoy. Activity has included:

- establishing a job club to help get people back into employment and through the Future Jobs Fund getting 13 young people into paid employment;

- taking over the Stag Theatre and Cinema leisure venue, resulting in 25,000 visitors per month who used to go elsewhere;

- setting up the Sevenoaks Town Partnership, bringing together key individuals and business representatives in the town, to work together, share resources and develop ideas and initiatives, such as a town wide website, listing and promoting all businesses and local venues/attractions, and the installation of digital promotional screens in large footfall areas;

- leading a successful bid to DCLG for Portas funding, with Sevenoaks Town Partnership being recognised as a Town Team and receiving a £10,000 grant towards the provision of a vintage bus operating during the summer on a circular route moving tourists through the town to and from Knole House, the National Trust property just outside the town centre, where at present many of the 100,000 tourists per year do not visit the town’s shops and facilities;

- in July the Town Council opened a youth café - in response to cuts to youth services in the area - as a great place for young people, open after school, weekends and during the school holidays, which has helped reduce anti-social behavious. But it is also helping to benefit the local economy – parents and carers can shop, eat out, go to a show or the cinema without paying for a babysitter. The youth café is also being used for a young person’s job club, via Connexions, and as a venue for monthly networking meetings for charities and third sector organisations where free legal advice is supplied by local lawyers.”

All in all it was another excellent County Councils Network conference but did witness the first signs of local conservative councillors anger at the Coaltion Government, well only time will turn if this continues or is just mid term blues. But we on the other side we know county councils are really interested in working proactively and positively with local councils to promote community well-being.

London Calling

London is rightly viewed as one of the World’s great cities as it is an international centre for business, politics, sports, culture and heritage.

But what about democratic representation for Londoners throughout all this. They are represented democratically by the regional structure of the Mayor and London Assembly and sub-regionally by the 32 boroughs and City of London. Some would argue that this is enough governance for one city but we would argue differently and say why is London the only major city in the World, where communities and people do not have a say or control over there public services on their doorstep.

The chances are that not many conversations in pubs or bus queues in London mention the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Nor do local (parish and town) councils drop off the lips of most people when expressing views on public services in the capital. All for good reason. These councils has an effective force have been absent from the political landscape in London for over a century and despite their existence throughout the rest of England over the past four decades, their creation in London was forbidden by law. The new Act lifts this legislative bar and allows communities the right to decide the governance arrangements for their area for the first time in decades.

Now these conversations are beginning to happen in communities throughtout the city. No more so than in Queen’s Park in the London Borough of Westminister. The community there is first in London since the new Act has become into being to hand in a petition to the Borough of Westminster to start a governance review for London’s first ever community council (parish council).

Angela Singhate, chair of the campaign for the Queen’s Park Community Council and Queen’s Park Neighbourhood Forum, said: “We want to continue the good work of the Neighbourhood Forum, which is now under threat, to improve the quality of life for local people.

“In the summer of 2010 the new coalition government announced that the government funding to support this work would be cut off from the end of the year. However, Paddington Development Trust, our parent charity, secured an independent grant of £40,000 a year to 2014 to support a transition period for Queen’s Park Forum. We want a community (parish) council in Queen’s Park was launched by residents with the support of Queen’s Park Forum in the hope that this will continue to provide a voice for local residents that cannot be cut off.”

Importantly the group wants to work in partnership with the Borough Council and from the National Association of Local Council's viewpoint, we cannot stress this enough. Local community councils cannot be set up in competition with Borough Councils but to complement them. It is about building a local democratic voice for the community and building cohesion for the area. We believe the Borough Council is looking at this in a positive way to develop Big Society for local communities. Please visit: //www.queensparkforum.org/ for more information.

Could this be a sign of things to come with other community groups like Neighbourhood Forums, Residents Associations and Civic Society following this path?

Residents of the London Fields and Broadway Market area, in the London Borough of Hackney, have started a movement for a London Fields Community Council. The campaign was formally launched at a meeting in February 2011.

Local residents have set up a website which sets out the arguments in favour of establishing a local council and describes the main steps for doing so.

This campaign cites the following as reasons for having a new community council:

· A general feeling of remoteness from decisions currently being made about the area;

· Development pressures, especially on the east side of London Fields, which people feel they have little control over;

· The disaffection of some young people and a lack of local positive activities for them;

· A lack of service provision on some of the area’s housing estates.

It is argued that a community council would deliver:

· More influence over things that matter to local people;

· Councillors who live locally and a Community Clerk who can fight their corner;

· Better services for those living on the housing estates;

· Statutory Neighbourhood Plans

· A local slice of the Local Infrastructure Levy (from planned local developments), which would reduce any precept;

· Running some community and leisure facilities, retaining proceeds from their use;

· A chance to bid to run other local services e.g. managing the Fields and licensing the market;

· The development of other community facilities in the locality.

Please visit: http://londonfieldscouncil.org.uk/ for more on this campaign.

We know these community campaigns are being replicated in Wapping (London Borough of Tower Hamlets) and Surbiton (Royal Borough of Kingson-upon-Thames) amongst others.

The National Association believes that only by giving local people a real voice and say over the way services are provided will communities feel connected to their governance and democracy. The key principle must be to empower communities, not restrict the democratic process. People and communities should be allowed to decide whether or not they want a more localised democratic voice.

Ultimately people have to be trusted to take a little more control over the things that most affect their day-to-day lives. People and communities in London now have a right to set up a local community council if they want one. We believe that Londoners should be allowed to decide what is best for them and take decisions accordingly.