It is surprising that engagement with local councillors seems to have been so patchy.

By and large, councillors have been shut out of the process, with even overview and scrutiny members having to rely on periodic (and infrequent) updates from of officers to keep themselves up to speed.

This is the fault of the system, and the framework (or lack of it) for negotiation between local government and central Government, designed as it is to dissuade the wider sharing of information beyond a carefully selected group.

Even where attempts have been made to engage backbench councillors in a more consistent way (for example, in Norfolk and Suffolk, the LGiU was contracted to travel the area convening awareness-raising seminars) this has principally been about information-sharing rather than dialogue.

Occasional reports to OSCs [Overview and Scrutiny Committee(s)] clearly have not been enough, merely for non-executive councillors to note progress, rather than being part of discussions, negotiation or provision of checks and balances. The role of O&S has been marginalised through perceptions around the complexity, secrecy or urgency of deal making.

This is dangerous for three reasons.

Firstly, the buy-in of a wider range of councillors is crucial to success.

Secondly, the involvement of councillors – beyond receiving updates – is important in ensuring that deals, once they are done, are robust enough to succeed. This robustness is something that can only be tested through effective scrutiny and oversight.

Thirdly, changes in personnel can have a significant effect on the direction of negotiations. Without wider buy-in and dialogue, following an election (or even a by-election) resulting in a change in political control, or any other internal group matter that could result in a new leader, carefully constructed agreements or negotiations could begin to unravel.

It is instructive to bear in mind that in our own engagement with the public, and through the Citizens’ Assemblies, members of the public expressed the strong view that councillor scrutiny should play a critical role in the devolution process.

There are probably a range of different mechanisms that councils, individually and collectively, need to deploy to involve their councillors. Importantly, such involvement needs to be planned – following the sequence set out in the main body of the report above – to ensure that councillors have a stake at every stage in the process. These mechanisms are likely to be:

Engagement within Cabinet. Because negotiations are being led by Leaders, Cabinet members are likely to need frequent updating;

Engagement by leaders within political groups. To secure political buy-in from members of the same party;

Engagement between political groups. Frequent discussion between the leaders of majority and minority parties in local councils to share information, discuss concerns and head off disagreement and discord;

Engagement with scrutiny.

Sharing information, inviting comment and brokering discussion

– as we have discussed, this also provides a formal check and balance on the development and implementation of devolution deals;

Engagement amongst all members.

Other than at full Council, there needs to be sustained engagement with all members – at member briefings, a discussion event specifically convened for discussion of devolution issues, or similar.

All the forms of engagement listed above are probably required, and need to be planned for, for each stage in the sequence of the devolution process. If this seems time-consuming or resource intensive, it has to be placed against the risks of devolution deals or negotiation processes unravelling for want of broad buy-in.