In a few days' time I will be departing the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS), which prompts a mixture of emotions for me: sadness at leaving an organisation that has been part of my life for 17 years and, of course, excitement for what comes next.
While I am looking forward to a new position – at Grant Thornton – much of that excitement nonetheless will be in watching CfGS as it continues to grow and develop. This is a moment of enormous significance for local democracy, a time when the national centre of excellence for governance and scrutiny will be called upon even more.
How the sector has changed since I started in 2008, and how we have had to respond to that change, I think says something profound about where local democracy is headed.
When I joined the CfGS, things felt a world away from today. Councils, while still under pressure, were better equipped. The sector as a whole was well managed and delivering in a broadly sustainable way.
Things have changed profoundly. That can be seen by how governance is held in much more value and esteem. That is both good and not so good.
Yes, senior leaders are taking governance seriously, but that is also a sign of difficulty. Councils' systems and processes for decision-making and accountability are under unprecedented pressure – with governance in the spotlight as both the cause and solution to a wide array of different problems.
While the context for governance has changed, so has the legislative landscape. When I started my job – then as a researcher – the corporate focus was largely on compliance. A national system of assurance, focused on the Best Value regime, was in place. And, a little later, the ‘simplified' National Indicator Set that went alongside the Audit Commission's Comprehensive Area Assessment inspection system arrived.
But things have changed completely. The abolition of this system in 2010 may have provoked a sigh of relief from some, but it also contributed to a rapid thinning of councils' corporate cores – something that has ended up having long-term consequences for councils' ongoing resilience.
These two changes are reflected in a dramatic shift in our work over the past 15 years. Back when the centre was still in its infancy, we were largely focused on carrying out research projects. These were at scale, sometimes multi-year, and often funded by the Government.
The fact a small charity was able to benefit from this funding said something about the Government's attitude to governance and scrutiny in that moment. But it also said something about the capacity of local authorities in that time, who could take part in evidence-gathering and take action on our findings.
When councils had larger corporate cores, people had the time and inclination to review the research material that we, and others, published. This was a model of research that now feels rather traditional: national ‘experts' handing down choice, authoritative nuggets.
Councils no longer have the capacity to review the outcomes of long-form research projects, however interesting they might be. Funders, too, are less willing to support work that does not have a direct, often immediate, tangible impact.
Since 2018 or so, our attention shifted to undertaking more direct support work for individual councils. While we are still a ‘national centre of excellence' on matters relating to overview and scrutiny – and government-funded for that work – CfGS is now an improvement partner for councils on more complex areas of corporate governance as well.
That has led to detailed work with the most challenged councils – our governance reviews for Kensington & Chelsea and Birmingham councils, for example. That has brought us much closer to the action – and given the organisation a better understanding of the real challenges governing brings.
Local government works best not as a ‘delivery arm' of government, but as a community with a shared purpose. Across that community, organisations are coming together with the interests of local people in mind, finding common ground and working on shared solutions.
So, while we are engaging less in long-term research projects, CfGS is now moving much more towards an ‘action-research' approach, where we learn directly from the work we are doing with clients. What do these changes in the sector and in our responses to it tell us?
While it is true that the requirement for more direct governance work with councils speaks to the cuts our sector has endured, it is nonetheless an indication of a growing maturity.
Councils want to work on improving governance because they know it is their responsibility – and government undoubtedly agrees. Maturity is itself double-edged: you get to decide how your governance should work, but you also have to do it for yourself.
And councils undoubtedly face a more challenging environment – a more complex, fragmented local state – where delivering for residents requires more co-ordination, more oversight and more scrutiny than ever before.
At the same time, the sector perhaps underestimates its own capacity to innovate and adapt. Increasingly, councils are looking to work differently – whether through mission-based approaches, new models of neighbourhood governance, or more collaborative ways of working. Governance is becoming part of how that change is enabled, not just how it is controlled.
That sense of collaboration remains one of the sector's enduring strengths. I have heard a few times that CfGS punches above its weight. That is because we are part of something bigger.
Local government works best not as a ‘delivery arm' of government, but as a community with a shared purpose. Across that community, organisations are coming together with the interests of local people in mind, finding common ground and working on shared solutions.
Our conference has acted over the years as a focal point for that growing governance and scrutiny community. It has always welcomed a long list of brilliant speakers and has benefitted from our fantastic trustees – including Lord Kerslake, now no longer with us, and his successor as chair, Catherine Howe, the chief executive of Dorset Council.
In recent years our conference has become much more dynamic and exciting to attend, as a freer, more innovative spirit has taken hold. This reflects the fact people now want to take practical action to tackle problems, not just discuss solutions.
In councils, too, there is a depth of skill and experience that is not always fully recognised. The community of councillors engaged in non-executive work – alongside officers working in law, democratic services and scrutiny – plays a critical role in sustaining governance. For those officers scrutiny can be an isolated function – which perhaps explains the strength of the professional networks that have developed over time.
Those once dismissed as ‘mere' minute-writers are, in reality, central to the functioning of local democracy. I know it is a mission of CfGS's to continue to work hard to make sure their invaluable contribution is recognised and helps to shape policy and practice.
What it all adds up to is a rapidly changing world and a sector that is increasingly thinking about governance and scrutiny as part of a bigger transformation.
The thinning out of corporate cores will continue to be an enormous challenge for councils but that will force more innovation and, I hope, a more collective approach.
As councils continue on their journey of transformation – through local government reorganisation and other pressures – and as combined authorities expand across the country, we can expect governance and scrutiny to take on a greater role and a greater importance.
The work councils are doing – along with CfGS – is already taking on that challenge. As I look forward to my own new chapter at Grant Thornton, I cannot wait to see where it goes next.
Ed Hammond is deputy chief executive of the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS)
