Housing Communities and Local Government Select Committee

As the debate about the UK’s relationship with the EU continues to dominate the political agenda, citizens’ assemblies have been mooted by several high profile figures as a possible way to break the Brexit impasse. Here Sarah Allan and Rebecca McKee explain how and why citizens’ assemblies are able to assist and improve the policy-making process through engaging and informing ordinary members of the public.

Citizens’ assemblies have been gathering more attention amongst politicians, the public, and the media in recent weeks. For some this model of public engagement is entirely new. Yet, the history of citizens’ assemblies and methods like them extends back to the 1970s. Since then they have been used around the world to bring together representative groups of the public to deliberate on controversial and complex issues. Countries that have had citizens’ assemblies include Canada, the United States, Australia and Belgium. Most famously Ireland’s citizens’ assembly and constitutional convention played key roles in change on abortion and gay marriage.

The core purpose of a citizens’ assembly is to give decision-makers access to the informed and considered views of the public. A citizens’ assembly can be said to have worked when these three factors are delivered to a high standard. We use the examples of the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit (CAB) and the Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care (CASC) to show that it is possible to deliver on these principles.

‘The views of those that took part in our citizens’ assembly have been vital in informing our thinking and the model also provides a possible route for further public engagement and building the support that any reforms will need.’ Clive Betts MP, Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee.

The public

Is it possible to recruit a representative group of participants?

The primary goal of citizens’ assembly recruitment is to secure a broadly representative sample of the population as assembly members. The population of interest varies depending on the assembly topic. CASC was commissioned to look at the devolved issue of social care, so participants were only recruited from England. CAB dealt with the UK’s exit from the EU, so its membership was UK-wide. Both topics were issues of policy so participants were restricted to those eligible to vote in either general elections for CASC, or the 2016 European Referendum for CAB. Continue reading →

The Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care was the first of its kind to be commissioned by parliament in the UK. It builds on the work Involve did with the Constitution Unit on the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit last September. Over two weekends 47 members of the public deliberated on how adult social care in England should be funded long-term. The recommendations will feed into the joint inquiry by the Health and Social Care Select Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee. As Dr Rebecca McKee explains, this is another example of how the public are capable of engaging in complex topics and producing well informed and workable recommendations.

How should we pay for social care? This question has been the subject of much debate, with numerous proposals by successive governments, thinktanks, and others being published but never successfully implemented. Although there is consensus on the need for reform, exactly how to do it has fallen into what former Cabinet minister Charles Clarke has labelled the ‘too difficult box’. Later this year the government plans to publish its Green Paper on funding social care for older people. Ahead of this, the Commons Health and Social Care and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committees are conducting a joint inquiry to develop a cross-party consensus on ideas for reforming the funding of this sector.

The Citizens’ Assembly on Social Care asked the question of how adult social care in England should be funded long-term. Assembly members were asked to look at adult social care for both people of working age and older adults. They reflected on questions such as how much individuals should have to pay themselves, how much should be covered by public funding, and whether personal assets, such as houses, should be included in calculations of what they might be expected to contribute. Continue reading →