Professor Jonathan S. Davies evaluates the government’s agenda in light of the English Devolution White Paper.
It has long been recognised that English governance is hopelessly over-centralised, with control over money and power hoarded in Westminster and Whitehall, with Towns and Cities not getting a look in. Promises from the centre to “let go” of power have come and gone over decades. With the rollout of city-regional mayoral combines, there has been piecemeal progress in devolving powers and resources mainly for economic development, transport and infrastructure, especially in major conurbations. However, committed devolutionists point out that powers are limited and in any case that Mayors remain accountable to civil servants and ministers for spending. Ultimately, the centre continues to call the shots.
A new government with a new commitment
When the current government was elected in July 2024, hopes were high that things would be different as ministers with local government experience took up prominent roles in the new Ministry of Communities, Housing and Local Government. The vibe was that they would restore local government to its rightful constitutional place as an elected body capable of taking decisions based on its electoral mandate, rather than having to take cues from on high. The keenly awaited English Devolution White Paper, published in December 2024, set out the government’s approach.
On the face of it, the White Paper is radical in its ambition. It seeks to complete the map of Mayoral strategic authorities in England, the new sub-regional tier inaugurated by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in 2014. The goal is that the whole country should soon have a large mayoral strategic authority with upwards of 1.5 million people. It is to this tier that the government proposes to devolve certain powers and resources.
Powers devolved to the mayoral strategic authorities include Transport and local infrastructure; Skills and employment support; Housing and strategic planning; Economic development and regeneration; Environment and climate change; Health, wellbeing and public service reform; and public safety. At the same time, the most advanced Mayoral authorities will receive integrated funding settlements covering devolved functions, with a small degree of flexibility to move resources between budget-headings. The government is also proposing to introduce multi-year funding settlements for mayoral authorities from 2026. Accountability is to be simplified with a framework focusing on outcomes instead of line-by-line spend, and reporting to a single Whitehall office instead of multiple departments. The government has also established three new central-local partnership bodies, and pledges that this is just the start: the Devolution White Paper is a “floor”, not a “ceiling”.
However, judged against radical devolutionary rhetoric, the White Paper has disappointed, echoing familiar themes from the past. England is too centralised. Devolution is needed. Yet, the centre continues to dominate.
From Devolution to Devo-centralism?
Perhaps the most substantive anxiety about the government’s approach is its dogmatism towards reorganisation. This has two elements: the sub-regional mayoral strategic authorities discussed above, and local government reorganisation. Local government reorganisation seeks to create a system of mega-authorities covering populations of 500,000. If completed, it will see the abolition of district authorities, and mergers among some smaller existing unitary councils. Whatever we make of the principle of reorganisation, and it evokes strong feelings, the process is neither devolutionary nor democratic. Should there be resistance, it reasserts the right of Westminster to issue directives, making decisions about the future of local government without dialogue or consent from the sector.
Second, many of the powers devolved to strategic authorities come with strings or obligations. Proposed statutory obligations include strategic development plans, local growth plans and elevated targets for home building. Plans must be agreed with government, and are expected to align local and national priorities. Authorities perceived not to be in compliance will be subjected to ministerial intervention, the White Paper warns.
Finally, the White Paper does not mention fiscal devolution at all, and the government has since made clear that it is not on the radar. Without the capacity to generate its own resources, alongside a robust national equalisation mechanism, local government will remain dependent on the whims of whichever government happens to be in power. Anything this government does can easily be undone by the next.
A fundamental problem to which these proposals attest is that the centre still sees local government as the delivery arm for the Government’s missions. This assumption lies at the core of the devolution conundrum: why it is that the promise of devolution invariably disappoints. There remains a fundamental tension between the role of democratically elected local government, and central government’s view of the local state as like any other public service: a resource for Westminster and Whitehall.
Where next?
There are no easy fixes for this culture of devolving with one hand and centralising or mandating with the other. It is very deeply inscribed in what academics call the “British Political Tradition”. However, Minister Jim McMahon did comment on the need to sort out “what is the core business of local government and what are the expectations of central government”.
To achieve this, one positive step forward could be to hold a convention with a view to producing a charter of central and local government rights and responsibilities. Unlike previous failed charters, this one could then be legislated. The extent to which local government is or should be a “delivery arm” for the centre would then be debated and determined in an open democratic manner, rather than simply assumed as it is by Westminster, Whitehall and indeed some council leaders.
Conclusion
In short, the government’s approach marks a small step forward with respect to devolved functions, but evades fiscal devolution altogether and includes radical ambitions for reorganisation that are arguably anti-devolutionary. The impasse of the centralising “British Political Tradition” goes on. For now, the central dilemma of English governance remains unresolved.
Read the full report.
This blog was written by Professor Jonathan S. Davies.
Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this analysis post are those of the author and not necessarily those of City-REDI or the University of Birmingham.