Problems and Purpose

The issue of how best to engage citizens in democratic processes is pressing. Assembly South project took into consideration that the dissatisfaction with existing democratic systems is widespread, participation in elections is below historical levels, and the quality of public debate is low. In this framework, supporters of existing systems suggest that, in complex and diverse societies, it is not possible to hear the voice of every citizen on every issue, particularly where many citizens may have limited interest, information or understanding. Meanwhile, critics of current arrangements argue that most citizens (and particularly members of minority groups) are poorly represented and that opportunities for democratic engagement should be both extended and deepened.

The organisers considered Citizens’ assemblies as one of the solutions to this challenge. In fact, they bring together a random selection of citizens who are broadly representative of the wider population. These citizens learn about the issues under consideration, hear evidence from experts and other interested parties, deliberate amongst themselves and then come to recommendations. 

In recognition of the growing interest in both of these approaches in the UK, the Democracy Matters project tested in its experiment both designs: Assembly North comprised citizens only; Assembly South included citizens and local councillors [1].

In particular, the project had two objectives:

1. To assess whether the creation of citizens’ assemblies could improve the operation of democracy in the UK and to build knowledge on how such assemblies might best be run;
2. To investigate what members of the public in England think about devolution when they are given the opportunity to learn about and debate the issue in depth [2].

Background History and Context

Assembly South was particularly timely: in September 2015, the leaders of the 15 local authorities, the two Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and the two National Park Authorities (NPAs) that cover Hampshire and the Isle of Wight submitted Devolution for the People of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: A Prospectus for Discussion with Government (HIOW Prospectus) to Central Government. This proposal (which had not been ratified by the local councils) became a central topic of discussion amongst Assembly members [3].

The Solent and Isle of Wight area was chosen to ensure a mix of locations (urban and rural; different local authorities) and reasonable ease of access to Southampton where the Assembly took place [4].

In term of content, Assembly South focused on devolution, i.e. a highly topical constitutional issue in much of the country today. ‘Devolution deals’ are a major plank of government policy. They entail significant constitutional reshaping, but have so far been driven mainly by concerns about economic development, particularly in the north of England. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority was the first to agree to a devolution deal with the previous coalition government in 2014 and additional powers (including in health and social care) were announced in 2015. A number of further devolution deals have been either proposed or finalised across England, including in Sheffield, Liverpool, West Yorkshire and Cornwall. These deals are negotiated between central government and leaders of local authorities. The government typically (but not always) requires an elected mayor as a precondition of a deal. However, the announcement of an agreement between the Chancellor and city region leaders does not immediately constitute new arrangements: public consultation and support from local councils are needed for a final deal. Critics claim that these deals have been made behind closed doors, that local leaders will use party discipline to ensure that they are ‘done deals’ and that any consultations will be superficial. Advocates say that the practicalities of negotiating between levels of government mean they cannot be carried out effectively in public and that the coming months will provide an important opportunity to consult and strike stronger deals.

The project was an opportunity to respond to the document Devolution for the People of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight: A Prospectus for Discussion (HIOW Prospectus) that had been submitted to central government in September 2015 by 15 local authorities, i.e. the two Local Enterprise Partnerships and the two National Park Authorities that cover Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Assembly South provided a timely opportunity to offer insights into the views of citizens on the local implications of devolution [5].

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Assembly South was one of two citizens’ assembly pilots organised by Democracy Matters, a collaboration of university researchers and civil society organisations supported by the Economic and Social Research Council. The consortium include the University of Sheffield, University of Southampton, University College London, the University of Westminster and the Electoral Reform Society [6].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Assembly South comprised citizens from the Solent and Isle of Wight area. The objective was to have 45 participants:

• 30 citizens selected randomly to fill various socio-demographic characteristics including gender, age, ethnicity and political persuasion;
• 15 local councillors from different political parties and councils.

The project team did not necessarily expect to achieve this objective as members were not offered an honorarium and there was no established avenue for Assembly outcomes to have direct political influence (both features of citizens’ assemblies in other countries). However, the project was able to offer hotel accommodation, meals and compensation for travel costs.

On the day before the first Assembly South weekend, 31 citizens and 14 councillors had indicated that they would attend. However, on the first weekend the Assembly was made up of 29 participants:

• 23 citizens broadly representative of gender and political persuasion;
• 6 councillors (2 Con, 1 Lib Dem, 2 Labour and 1 UKIP from 5 different authorities in the Solent area).

For the second weekend, three citizen participants and one councillor were unable to attend because of illness. One other councillor failed to attend.

Citizen participants were selected from the YouGov online panel. Invitations to complete an initial survey were sent to all members of this panel in the Solent and Isle of Wight area (around 4,000 people). This survey asked general questions about attitudes towards politics and whether respondents would be interested in taking part in a citizens’ assembly. 

Respondents did not know what the topic of the assembly would be, and so were not able to opt in or out on that basis. A second survey of those who initially expressed interest provided more detail on the assembly and asked if they would be available to attend on the proposed dates. Finally, those who responded were contacted by telephone via YouGov to explain more about the event and to answer any questions.

The final sample of citizens was broadly representative in terms of gender and political persuasion. However, because the response rate to the filtering survey was low, it was not possible to meet quota targets to ensure that the assembly was representative in terms of age or ethnic background. Members also displayed, on average, higher levels of political interest than the general population, although the group included many who were not already engaged in formal party politics.

The local councillors – drawn from city, borough and district councils in the Solent region – were invited to participate by the Southern Policy Centre and were selected to be broadly representative of the balance of elected officeholders across the region. It is not clear yet why the majority of councillors (9 out of 14, with one replacement arranged at the last minute) who agreed to participate failed to attend [7].

Methods and Tools Used

A citizens’ assembly is a group of citizens who gather to deliberate on an issue; through random selection they can give voice to less politically active citizens who are hard to access in usual public consultation processes. Further, assembly members are generally asked to consider the full range of arguments available to decision-makers, and their deliberations approximate how a diverse community might respond to complex political issues if they were more fully informed [8].

Two aspects of a citizens’ assembly are crucial to any judgements about its success: the degree to which its members are representative of the broader population in their area; and the degree to which their work fosters informed, considered thinking about the issues in hand.

Although the citizens’ assembly is an experiment in democratic practice, in phase of presentation of the methodology, the organisers ensured that, as well as learning as much as possible about what works best, it has as much impact on the real world as possible. To do this the project team made contact with a range of democratic practitioners ranging from NGOs, parliamentarians, government ministers and civil servants, highlighting the importance of the work that was being carried out by the assembly [9].

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Assembly South was part of an important new experiment in how to organise democracy effectively. It consisted of a group of 23 citizens and 6 councillors from the Solent and Isle of Wight area who met in Southampton over two weekends in October and November 2015 to discuss the future of local governance [10].

The two assemblies were structured into three phases: learning, consultation, and deliberation/ decision. This was designed to ensure that final recommendations were carefully considered and well informed. Successful discussions of this kind require three resources: access to information, expertise, and diverse viewpoints; capacity for inclusive, considered deliberation; and a strong sense of community among members. We worked hard to build each of these.

In order to provide background information, the academic team prepared a set of detailed briefing papers that introduced the issues that the Assembly would be discussing. These were vetted by a range of experts with varying perspectives to ensure neutrality. Assembly members were given copies at the start of the first weekend; the papers were also posted on the Assembly website, where they remain freely available.

Building upon this foundation, members received interactive talks by academic team members during the first weekend outlining the current local government system and various reform options. Members then heard from witnesses with diverse backgrounds, who expressed a very wide range of views. Witnesses at the first weekend were selected by the academic team to represent as far as possible the range of options that are currently advocated.

To maximise opportunities for effective and inclusive discussion, the assembly alternated between small-group discussions chaired by facilitators and whole-group plenaries, including presentations. Engagement with witnesses varied between plenary Q&As and ‘speed dating’ (witnesses visiting small groups). Both pilots also helped members engage with the issues between and after the two weekends through a closed Facebook group that continued discussions and raised questions.

The organisers worked to build community, forge a constructive culture, support deliberation and ensure retention between meetings. They embedded a range of team-building activities into the weekends. Early in the first weekend, Assembly members discussed the values that should underpin their working methods. The support team aimed to address any problems or concerns raised by Assembly members. 

Thirty per cent of the Assembly contributed to the Facebook group. While this figure may seem low, it is above the 20 per cent that is the standard engagement result for online communities [11].

Since the conclusion of the Assembly’s formal work, citizen members have contacted local representatives, engaged local community groups, and spoken with friends and family about the current devolution proposals and the assembly’s recommendations. Councillor members have presented the assembly’s recommendations in council meetings about the HIOW Devolution prospectus [12].

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The main outcome of Assembly South is that members were evenly split on their support for the current devolution proposals. Their recommendation is for a regional body that covers the Hampshire and Isle of Wight (HIOW) area and prioritises the integration of health and social care. Their first preference is for an elected assembly [13].

Assembly South focused on the question of how Hampshire and Isle of Wight should be governed. In the second weekend, the Assembly considered its preferred characteristics of any new devolved body that might be created above the level of current local authorities. 

Discussions were structured around three broad areas:

• Priorities: If a devolved body is to be created, what should its priorities be?
• Scale: If a devolved body is to be created, what area should it cover?
• Structures: If a devolved body is to be created, how should decision-making be organised?

The small group discussions generated options for each of these issues that were then voted on at the beginning of the final day of the Assembly. In addition, members took part in an ‘Open Space’. this allowed them to suggest issues that they felt had not been discussed in enough depth in the Assembly. Small table discussions generated topics and there were two rounds of discussions led by specific members who had suggested the issue. Other members could move to any discussion that was of interest. Each open space discussion generated a proposition that was then voted on by the Assembly as a whole to ensure that there was broad support.

Finally, assembly members were also asked to consider whether they would support the HIOW Prospectus if a referendum were held tomorrow on the proposal [14].

The results show that the top priority is clearly “Health and social care: integration to ensure responsiveness to local needs”. It is notable that this is not part of the HIOW Prospectus. Across the English devolution deals, only Greater Manchester has come to an agreement with central government to devolve responsibilities in this area of policy.

Five other policy areas were closely bunched in terms of preference (in order of priority):

1. Public transport (providing the framework for more effective, accessible and integrated public transport);
2. Business support;
3. Housing investment (investment in housing that responds to local needs);
4. Public engagement (to ensure shared decision-making and transparency);
5. Further education and training [15].

Analysis and Lessons Learned

A key finding of the research team is that randomly selected citizens are ready, willing and able to engage with complex policy and governance debates when given appropriate support and opportunity [16].

The following observations are based on feedback from Assembly members and the impressions of the members of the Democracy Matters team:

• The first and most important lesson is that the participants in Assembly South were willing and able to deal with highly complex contemporary governance issues. By their own assessment, all members agreed that that they had ‘learned a lot’ during the process, while many went out of their way to write strongly complementary statements in the final survey at the end of the final day. The Democracy Matters team was deeply impressed by the extent of members’ commitment and the quality of their engagement during the weekends.
• Second, one of the rationales for including councillors as members of Assembly South was to understand how their participation affects the deliberations of a citizens’ assembly. In the survey of participants at the end of each weekend, we asked members whether one or more people in their small group had tended to dominate the discussion so that others found it difficult to contribute. At the end of the first weekend a third of members stated that such domination was present in their small group discussions. Observation of the groups suggests that citizens often deferred to the councillor on their table when faced with challenging questions on local governance. At the end of the second weekend, however, the perception of domination amongst members had dropped significantly. There are a number of explanations for this change: the small groups were reshuffled and rebalanced in the second weekend; facilitators were more experienced in ensuring fairness in participation; and participants had grown in confidence and knowledge by the second weekend and were less likely to allow others to dominate.
• Third, the importance of considering how witnesses provide evidence to Assembly members became clear across the two weekends. One of the advantages of citizens’ assemblies is that members hear from witnesses with a range of different opinions. In the first weekend, a traditional witness format was used: witnesses presented their case for 5 minutes; participants worked in groups to generate questions; selected questions are then answered in a plenary session. This relatively formal format is controlled by the Chair, with most participants simply observers and relatively few questions can be answered. The second weekend experimented with ‘Witness Speed Dating’. This worked in a very different way and changed the power dynamics noticeably. Again, witnesses presented their case in 5 minutes; and participants generated questions in small groups. But then the witnesses circulated round each table with 8 minutes at each one. Members knew that they only had witnesses with them for a short time and so demanded succinct answers. And they were able to follow up if those answers were not acceptable. Members embraced the opportunity to question witnesses directly, while the extent to which participants felt empowered after this exercise was noticeable and the activity received highly positive comments.
• Fourth, the Open Space organised on the final day also proved a positive innovation. Although the agenda for the Assembly was open for discussion, it was primarily driven by the interests of the research team. Having focused on the HIOW Prospectus and the potential characteristics of any new devolved body, members were given space to discuss issues that they felt had not been given enough time in the Assembly. Members who suggested topics then led the discussions with other members also interested in that particular issue. Some groups were large, others only contained two members, but it gave space for these conversations to take place. Each group produced a proposition that was then voted on by the whole Assembly to gauge whether there was broad support for the statement. Again, there was positive feedback on this activity.

Finally, Assembly South highlighted important issues around the future sustainability of citizens’ assemblies at local government level. Although more effective from a democratic perspective than many other consultation mechanisms, they remain expensive. Quality deliberation takes considerable time. Members deserve to be treated well during that time, requiring good hotels, meeting facilities, food, and refreshments, all of which come at a cost. 

The success of Assembly South depended on a large team of student facilitators and helpers who gave their time freely, but who would not be available on a regular basis. Involvement in a citizens’ assembly is also time-consuming for its members and there were retention challenges in Assembly South (although most related to illness). These challenges highlight the need for careful consideration of timing and choice of topics for future assemblies, as well as consideration of scale and resources. However, the success of the Democracy Matters citizens’ assembly pilots demonstrates that the conditions for future sustainability at the local level are worthy of further examination [17].

See Also

Sheffield Citizens' Assembly on Devolution

References

[1] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, pp. 3-4.

[2] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/,p. ii.

[3] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 3.

[4] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 6.

[5] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 1.

[6] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, pp. 4-5.

[7] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, pp. 6-7.

[8] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, pp. 3-4.

[9] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 17.

[10] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 1.

[11] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, pp. 7-8.

[12] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 20.

[13] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 1.

[14] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 10.

[15] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 11.

[16] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, p. 1.

[17] Citizens' Assembly (2016). Revitalising Democracy in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight - The Report of Assembly South. Retrieved from https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/, pp.15-16.

External Links

https://citizensassembly.co.uk/assembly-south-overview-report/

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/09/citizen-assembly.page

https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/case-studies/democracy-matters

Notes