In a previous article for North East Bylines, I argued that what we call “devolution” in the North East often feels more like rhetoric than reality. Despite powers formally handed down from Westminster, real control over economic strategy, policy, and spending remains tightly constrained. The structures set up sometimes feel like window dressing—symbolic rather than substantive.
This follow-up reflection delves deeper into why transparency, scrutiny, and accountability are crucial to turning devolution from a promise into a lived reality—and why these are precisely the areas where the North East Mayoral Combined Authority (NEMCA) and similar regional bodies must improve if they are to truly serve the people.
The illusion of power without accountability
Devolution is supposed to mean decision-making closer to the people, responsiveness, and outcomes tailored to the North East’s unique challenges. Yet too often, what we see is a top-down model dressed up as local leadership—decisions made behind closed doors or shaped by a narrow set of interests, with limited challenge or public insight.
Without robust scrutiny, decisions go unexamined. Without transparency, the public remains in the dark about priorities and spending. And without accountability, leaders are not meaningfully answerable to those they serve.
Where North East governance falls short
Scrutiny mechanisms are too weak: NEMCA’s Scrutiny Committee exists but is advisory rather than authoritative. Its recommendations can be ignored, and political alignments within the committee sometimes blunt its critical edge.
Transparency is passive: While meetings are public and papers published, this does not equate to engagement. Complex governance structures and technical language create barriers, limiting meaningful public involvement.
Accountability lacks teeth: External audits confirm legality and financial propriety but do little to ensure ongoing performance accountability or responsiveness to citizens.
Questioning the decision-making process: Although the authority’s constitution emphasizes collective decision-making rather than a strong mayor model, it is important to ask whether this functions in practice. Is decision-making genuinely collective at the cabinet table, or does it often become a rubber-stamping exercise for proposals already shaped behind closed doors? This dynamic weakens transparency and meaningful accountability.
Political change and its implications for governance
Looking ahead, the potential for significant political shifts following the May local elections across many authorities in the North East combined authority area could reshape the composition and dynamics of the Mayoral cabinet. With possible changes in party control or new councillors entering the fold, the political landscape around the decision-making table may look very different.
Such changes bring both opportunities and risks. A new political balance could invigorate debate, challenge entrenched interests, and prompt a fresh approach to governance. Conversely, without strong transparency and accountability mechanisms, rapid shifts could also lead to confusion, inconsistency, or power struggles behind closed doors.
This prospect makes it even more critical to embed robust governance structures now. Empowered scrutiny, accessible information, and genuine channels for public engagement will help ensure that accountability remains strong—regardless of who sits at the cabinet table. In times of political transition, good governance is not just a safeguard; it is the foundation for trust, stability, and effective regional leadership.
Lessons from neighbouring Tees Valley
By contrast, the Tees Valley Combined Authority has empowered its scrutiny committee with clearer powers to challenge and influence decisions, ensured political balance, and established independent advisory boards with strong conflict of interest policies.
They have also invested in active public engagement and transparent, accessible reporting that moves beyond mere compliance to genuine accountability.
What the North East should demand
To move beyond empty rhetoric, the North East needs a governance culture built on:
• Empowered, Independent Scrutiny: Committees with authority to hold leaders accountable and influence decisions, free from conflicts of interest.
• Accessible Transparency and Public Participation: Information that is clear and accessible, and genuine opportunities for citizens to engage, contribute, and hold decision-makers to account.
• Effective Accountability Mechanisms: Beyond audits, this means routine performance reporting, community forums, and independent oversight bodies with real investigative powers.
A shared responsibility
Devolution should empower the North East to shape its own future. But power without accountability risks disconnect, loss of trust, and policy that serves narrow interests rather than the wider community.
For devolution to be truly transformative, the people of the North East must reclaim governance—not just as spectators, but as active participants demanding transparency, scrutiny, and accountability.
The promise of devolution is not just about local control, but about local responsibility—to the people, to the communities, and to the region’s future.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
