The new Government’s plans for English devolution are rightly ambitious, but important questions remain and more consideration should be given to the whole picture of sub-national governance and the role of local government in it – argue Y-PERN Policy Fellow Dr Neil Barnett (Leeds Beckett University) and Paul Hayes, Senior Policy Engagement Fellow at Leeds University Business School.
The incoming Labour Government has wasted no time setting out its intentions for the Devolution agenda in England. Notably, in an early and much-publicised meeting at No. 10, Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner met with the twelve elected Metro Mayors in England to outline the intention to deepen their responsibilities, give them more financial flexibility, particularly for economic development, transport, skills and housing, and to establish a new relationship of central-mayoral partnership. This has been hailed as a significant change in the relationship to one in which Mayors considered they had been ‘talked down to’ by previous administrations. The new Government clearly see sub-national devolution as key to driving its growth agenda, with new responsibilities over spatial planning mooted, along with a requirement to produce Local Growth Plans.
Quickly following the meeting, Angela Rayner wrote to all areas she labelled as ‘devolution deserts’ (e.g. Hampshire) not yet covered by a devolution deal to, essentially, ‘get a move on’. Following this, the King’s Speech outlined an English Devolution Bill which will set out a new, standardised, Devolution Framework with devolution as the ‘default setting’.
“The Government in Whitehall is overloaded, and as a result people in the regions grow increasingly impatient about the decisions being made in London which they know could be better made locally. Under our new style of government, we will devolve government power so that more decisions are made locally.
1970, Conservative Party Election Manifesto – ‘A better tomorrow’
We will bring forward a sensible measure of local government reform which will involve a genuine devolution of power from the central government.”
An end to bartering behind closed doors?
There is much to be welcomed here. The detail of the new Devolution Framework remains to be seen, but it offers an alternative to the bartering, often ‘behind closed doors’, of deal-making with individual areas, which has been the case so far, and has been based on an opaque and piecemeal process seemingly without underlying principles. It is not yet clear whether this is intended to fully replace the ‘Tiered’ approach to Devolution (with four levels of powers) introduced by Michael Gove (former Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities); but it does seem likely that, as of now, differing places will find themselves with differing powers.
With respect to Yorkshire, it remains to be seen if there will be a ‘levelling up’ of the Combined Authorities (CAs), to give a more congruent set of responsibilities within and across the Region. Another issue is the current status of the Devolution Deal for a Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority, agreed with Gove, but yet to be confirmed.
Remaining questions: how will power be bestowed?
There are, however, other questions, which remain. The Prime Minister has spoken about new ‘powers’ for Metro Mayors, but it is unclear as to what this means in practice at this stage. For example, will Mayors, and CA’s get new statutory duties, or will they get more responsibility for allocating resources and funding, as is the case now. Will the new ‘powers’, be allocated to Mayors as elected officeholders, or go to the Combined Authorities collectively? Early indications seem to be that the Government is keen to ‘streamline’ decision-making by extending the powers of Mayors and allowing for majority voting in Combined Authority decision-making. This, however, has the potential to bring to the fore competing claims for democratic legitimacy between Mayors and constituent local authority leaders.
Remaining questions: the role of local authorities
Secondly, the focus of the devolution discourse, so far, has been on Mayors and CAs. There has been little mention of devolution to local authorities, but it is local government that provides the foundational services which must underpin any attempt to ‘kickstart’ economic growth. Angela Rayner has recently recognised this, and promised longer-term and more flexible funding settlements, and an end to competitive bidding for pots of funding (what one Council Leader referred to as ‘knobbly knees contests’). Councils will, however, continue to face severe financial constraint, at least in the medium-term, but as it stands it is unclear where (or if at all) they fit in the ‘Devolution Revolution’, and some fear that local government powers may actually be ‘sucked upwards’. Several areas have been unable, or unwilling, to secure agreement on the necessary combinations of councils necessary to be granted a Devolution Deal. The Government, however, is seemingly intent on getting more areas into the devolution fold by September this year. Not only does this seem overly ambitious, but paradoxical in the sense that the whole direction of travel is supposed to be based on enhancing local voice.
Moreover, the agenda also seems to continue the focus set in train by the previous government; devolution will be agreed between government and the ‘top level’ unitary or county local authorities (Angela Rayner’s letter was addressed to the leaders of these councils) with the remaining District Councils in county areas only considered as consultees.
We are likely to see a continuation of an inexorable move towards large, unitary, county councils in a ‘streamlining’ of the system, completing a re-organisation of English local government, which has proceeded incrementally and almost by stealth over the past two decades. This is despite clear evidence of the service or financial benefits of moving to larger councils, let alone the implications for local democracy.
The new Government’s intention to waste no time and move quickly to deliver growth, and its focus on delivery, are understandable, and, given this context, stepping back to raise the issue of wider local government structures may seem somewhat obtuse. However, more time and consideration should be given to the whole picture of sub-national governance and the role of local government in it.
Remaining questions: what’s the best approach for delivery?
Finally, the new Government’s ambitions are rightly and necessarily ambitious. A new approach based on partnership and outcomes has been signalled. The focus is on delivery and ‘what works’. Here, necessary conditions have been highlighted – the need for ‘joined-up’ government, and for a mission-driven approach, for example. Those of a certain age (like the authors) will remember these phrases as central to the Blair Government’s ‘modernisation’ agenda for public services and indeed New Labour’s ‘Third Way’. Moreover, localism and handing down power from Whitehall played a big part in the Coalition Government’s rhetoric after 2010. In the case of New Labour, the result, in reality, was an intensification of central control via hundreds of performance indicators; the Coalition Government passed the Localism Act 2012, which fell far short of the rhetoric, and the subsequent years were also dominated by austerity and intense financial control.
This is not to say that all governments disappoint, but to point out the scale of the task if Labour are to re-set central-local relations and, in doing so, achieve the long-pursued and seemingly elusive ambition of changing civil service culture and the desire of Ministers to keep close oversight for things over which they will be expected to assume public scrutiny.
The process of learning from evidence, then, should include learning from the difficulties previously experienced in striving for ‘joined-up’ approaches, for example, and from areas where there might have been signs of success. One initiative worth re-examining, for example, which ticks the boxes of localism, joined up working and a focus on outcomes and missions, would be place-based budgeting (aka ‘Total Place’), which was piloted during the Brown administration, but not built on after 2010.
It may also be worth re-examining proposals around what Hazel Blears (former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) described in 2007 as ‘devolution to the doorstep’. What powers should be devolved down to local council level, and potentially below? Freedoms to bring in local private landlord licensing without central approval immediately come to mind, and there will be other localist ideas that councils may want to push Angela Rayner for. The new Government’s intended new path gives fresh hope for that such initiatives can be brought back into the debate.
