Register

Topics

Spotlight

Explore LGIU

  2. Topics
  3. Democracy & Governance
  4. How can 10 years of English de…

How can 10 years of English devolution inform our response to the UK Government’s White Paper?

Introduction

LGIU members can join us for a free member-only virtual discussion on 12 December, to explore this subject further with a panel of experts. Book a place now.

Speculation is rife about the contents of the upcoming White Paper on English devolution, which the government is expected to publish in the coming days or weeks. In the press and among networks of council leaders, chief executives and experts in the sector, there have been rumours ranging from more mayoral devolution deals on the one hand to full-blown local government reorganisation on the other.

Nature abhors a vacuum and it is unsurprising that the rumour mill has been turning at such pace, given the unknown quantity that is the government’s devolution strategy. In this long read we try to bring a more measured voice to the discussion and set out some important principles that we in local government should hold on to as we digest and debate the White Paper, eventually feeding into an expected English Devolution Bill.

By surveying the approach to devolution that has been pursued in England since 2014, we argue that, though there has been a change of government in 2024, there is a risk that the approach continues to be ad hoc and episodic, with little consultation or participation on the part of local government and communities. There are things we would like to see the government take forward, many of which follow from previous work we have done on local government finance and our LGIU@40 manifesto. But there are some more fundamental challenges across the sector that need to be addressed.

From 2014 English devolution has focussed only on bespoke deals with combined authorities and has failed to address the challenges that local government has hoped devolution would help to alleviate. In part this is because the government has prioritised economic growth and political convenience, shying away from the tricky task of building a coherent, democratic vision for local empowerment and place-based service delivery. Signs are that this will continue to drive engagement with devolution in Whitehall, and that a more radical reckoning with some of the big challenges in local finance, services and democracy will be left to one side. As we look ahead to an imminent White Paper, and the lively debate that is bound to follow, there is an opportunity to learn lessons from the past ten years of devolution policy. Specifically, these are some of the key points that we need to hold on to as we debate the government’s approach, and, hopefully, as we in local government help to shape it in the near future:

  1. Clarity of purpose. Many of the challenges in local democracy stem from the lack of clarity that emanates from the centre of government not only about what devolution is intended to achieve, but what local government is there to do and how combined authorities fit within the subnational pattern of governance. A clear sense of the role local government will play in delivering the government’s five “missions”, not just economic growth, will be crucial here. If policies like total place budgeting are to be revived then they need to fit coherently within this pattern as well.
  2. A solid constitutional foundation. Place the functions of councils and combined authorities in constitutional statute and ensure there is a clear national blueprint for devolution in England. As part of this, there needs to be consideration of combined authorities’ role in public service delivery.
  3. Metrics, evaluation and data. Following on from the previous recommendation, the government needs to work with mayors to develop a systematic and robust approach to gathering and sharing data across and within combined authority areas. This would be used to measure progress against key aims and to highlight the impact of policy interventions. But it is also an important tool in improving openness and transparency, as well as accountability, with residents, strengthening the democratic anchor for combined authorities within local communities.
  4. Fix the funding. The success of devolution is closely linked to fixing the local government funding crisis. This is not the case in the UK. Even in areas that have a devolution deal in place the quantum of money involved is not seen as adequate to fix many of the problems in care, growth and housing, while the funding pots are also ring fenced. In other countries, such as Germany, responsibilities cannot be handed down to local authorities without the necessary financial resources.
  5. Build a vision for towns. The White Paper and subsequent legislation need to incorporate towns and other areas that may not be as economically productive as the core cities into this vision.
  6. Greater dialogue with local leaders as well as combined authority mayors. The Council of the Nations and the Regions had its first meeting in October 2024 and included the directly elected mayors from each combined authority in England. The role and scope of the Council is still being bottomed out in practice, but it is clear that the government does not intend to incorporate other non-mayoral leaders from local government into it. The problem of dialogue and trust between central and local government still needs to be addressed, therefore.

This long read uses findings from a series of interviews conducted with chief executives and council leaders as part of LGIU’s lgiu@40 campaign in 2023, as well as roundtable discussions and workshops with senior decision-makers and commentators in the English local government sector. The work was supported by Queen Mary, University of London.

Is the devolution White Paper a chance to break with continuity?

The first devolution deal was struck with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in November 2014, followed by deals with Sheffield and West Yorkshire, Liverpool City Region, Cornwall, the North East, Tees Valley, and West Midlands. Rather than rushing to put together a national framework, or a coherent and prescriptive program for devolution to English city regions, the previous government pursued a deal-based approach to regional policymaking (Etherington & Jones 2016; Sandford 2016). Local authorities were asked to come forward with clear and ambitious proposals for combined authorities that could take on greater spending and organisational powers from Westminster.

Since 2014, therefore, Conservative ministers in Westminster devolved selected powers and responsibilities, along with specific spending powers, to some of these combined authorities. The framework permitted an ad hoc and asymmetric form of devolution with individual areas negotiating their own bespoke deals with the centre. The aim of the devolution deal, and of Chancellor George Osborne’s vision of devolution more broadly, was predominantly to boost local economic growth and make savings in public spending through efficiencies and better integration of service delivery across these areas on a “place” basis. Meanwhile, Greater Manchester alone among English city-regions, even a decade later, was made responsible for its £6billion health and social care budget through the creation of the Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership. A significant acceleration of the governance changes that were already underway.

A decade on and the incoming Labour government has made commitments to continue expanding devolution deals across England. This is relatively unusual, given the regularity with which governments dismantle their predecessors’ innovations and institutions, as happened in the past with Regional Development Agencies. While on the one hand, existing mayoral combined authorities have continued to call for extra powers so they can go “further and faster” on economic development and public service reform, other areas have made the case to government that new combined authorities and new deals would be mutually beneficial.

In the Autumn Statement in November 2022, the previous Conservative government announced a further roll out of devolution “deals” with English combined authority city-regions, as well as extending more limited powers and responsibilities to other areas like Cornwall, though without introducing mayoral leadership. The Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove’s speech to the Convention of the North in January 2023 revealed a further set of deals, along with additional “trailblazer” powers for established combined authorities in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.

Together with deals announced earlier in the year for York and North Yorkshire alongside the East Midlands (effectively the D2N2 LEP geography), even prior to the general election over 50% of England’s population lives within elected mayor geographies. To date, according to the Institute for Government, devolution deals in England have handed £30 billion in spending power to city-regions and combined authorities (Paun et al 2024). This remains a relatively small proportion of total public spending, however, and indicates the place that regional policy occupies within Whitehall thinking. Since July further deals have been announced and an “expression of interest” process was opened for more councils to come forward to the negotiating table.

The exact parameters of what the government wants from devolution, beyond a focus on economic growth, remain fairly unclear. As is the logic of how they hope combined authorities will help to achieve those aims. Local government is, therefore, still in the dark about where they fit what the remit of future governance arrangements might be.

Since the general election in July, signs are that the new government is set to pursue the existing model of English devolution further. Legislation that would make devolution the default option was announced in the King’s Speech as were specific powers for skills and bus franchising. As a further indication of the government’s intentions, shortly after the general election Kier Starmer met with the combined authority mayors in Downing Street. Meanwhile, the first meeting of the new Council of the Nations and the Regions took place in October. The mayors of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the East Midlands, Greater Manchester, the Liverpool City Region, London, the North East, South Yorkshire, Tees Valley, the West Midlands, the West of England, and York and North Yorkshire attended, along with leaders from the devolved nations, the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minster of State for Investment. How important this new body will become in building much needed trust and dialogue between central and local government remains to be seen. But, as an indication of the value placed on it in Downing Street and Whitehall, the next meeting will not take place until Spring 2025 and there is to be no statutory basis for the council’s responsibilities or discussions. Gordon Brown’s Commission on the Future of the UK called for a new body along these lines that was “based in statute” (Labour Party 2022).

The Devolution White Paper will set out what the government sees as the direction of travel for devolution. The government has already published Invest 2035, its industrial strategy green paper, which references specifically the role that combined authorities will play in driving growth:

“The Industrial Strategy will concentrate efforts on places with the greatest potential for our growth sectors: city regions, high-potential clusters, and strategic industrial sites. The Government is committed to devolving significant powers to Mayoral Combined Authorities across England, giving them the tools they need to grow their sectoral clusters and improve the local business environment through ambitious Local Growth Plans.” (HM Government 2024)

While the Labour government has abandoned the language of levelling up, this upcoming document should clarify its relationship to existing “levelling up” policy frameworks. Legislative underpinning for the government’s programme, a longstanding call for many who have lobbied in favour of devolution, is said to be imminent as well, in the form of an English Devolution Bill.

An important transformation in English governance is still underway, therefore. As we outline in this paper, it is proceeding in an incremental manner that has long characterised the English approach to policy change. This has often been described as “muddling through”, and usually means resisting rigid frameworks or bold visions. Yet it also limits and shapes the forms that devolution takes in practice.

Measuring the success of English devolution

It is important that we take stock of the strengths and weaknesses of the devolution programme so far. UK policy-makers do not have a strong track record in learning from previous iterations of policy, and the previous – Conservative – government’s approach to regions, industrial strategy and levelling up is a prime example (Coyle et al 2023). The new Labour government should ensure that it avoids the mistakes of the past, particularly by building on a foundation of evidence, clarity of purpose and understanding of what works.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act, which was ratified by Parliament in 2023, aimed to consolidate the progress that has been made in terms of decentralisation over recent years. Yet the paradox is that while officials in the Treasury and the Department for Housing, Levelling Up and Communities (DLUHC) were pursuing the devolution agenda, the evidence base for the positive economic and social impact of decentralisation in England remains underdeveloped.

That is not to say that the evidence is non-existent. There have been some signs that city-regions achieve results with the additional powers they have. Combined authorities have chalked up successes in a number of policy areas, from affordable housing in the West Midlands, integrated transport in Greater Manchester, adult education in West Yorkshire and the Housing First approach to homelessness in Liverpool City Region. In Greater Manchester, rough sleeping fell by 44% from 2017. Meanwhile, during the Covid-19 pandemic, city regions were widely seen as having a positive impact in terms of communications with central government, setting the policy and response agenda in ways not available to local authorities, and in planning for a post-pandemic rebuild (Kippin & Morphet 2023). Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester, took on a particularly prominent role during this time and played up to his reputation as the “Voice of the North”.

Perhaps most striking, in October 2022 the Health Foundation published the first paper in a study of the impact that devolution to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has had on people’s health in the city-region. The researchers reported a slight increase in life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and self-reported wellbeing since devolution in 2016, controlling for other variables and measured against a control group from outside the city-region. This was an important milestone as it demonstrated a clear and positive outcome as a result of policy changes brought about by devolution. Chiefly these involved interventions to target the social determinants of health and to shift focus to prevention of ill health. The Health Foundations’ study found that integrated working across the public sector, particularly health and local government partners was essential in achieving success.

However, several challenges make a sober assessment of how cities and regions have performed following English devolution deals difficult to develop:

  • Firstly, there has not been a smooth, structured or systematic rollout of any devolution ‘programme’. English devolution is ad hoc and has been based on bespoke deals with individual authorities and groups of authorities.  Comparisons are, therefore, hard to draw. But it also means that the aims and objectives of devolution are unclear or have changed over time. This deal-based approach to policy change has reinforced the power of the centre vis a vis local government, not least because councils have been kept in the dark about the government’s strategic aims.
  • Secondly, it is still very new. Though the deal with Greater Manchester was announced a decade ago it took time to get up to speed. A mayor was not elected until 2017 and many of the powers and responsibilities the GMCA now has were not included at the outset. More city regions, as well as Cornwall and, more recently, rural county combined authorities, signed deals over that decade. This means that in many parts of the country the situation is new and still evolving.
  • Thirdly, even those city regions like Greater Manchester, which have had a wider range of powers, with increased capacity and a longer time to develop, than other areas, are still required to operate within the highly centralised context of UK governance. This includes politics, culture and economy that is weighted towards London and the south east, but also a system of fiscal, political and policy decision-making that hoards power at the centre in Whitehall and Westminster.
  • Finally, there is a lack of consistent and clear data to draw from to assess performance or outcomes. Reliable data is sorely lacking across the UK to measure and compare policy performance. Comparison across jurisdictions is, therefore, difficult, while the opportunities for learning and experimenting through devolution are significantly undermined.

Given the lack of significant evidence that devolution boosts economic growth, the government should give more weight to the other potential benefits. Chiefly it can lead to better delivery of public services and infrastructure while also opening a pathway to address the lack of public trust and negative attitudes towards democratic institutions. There is also an opportunity to integrate local government more fully as a partner in Labour’s five “missions” for government, which include boosting economic growth alongside health, opportunity, crime reduction and the clean energy transition (Labour Party 2023). Indeed, the government will struggle to achieve these mission aims if they do not bring local government in.

However, after years of underfunding, hollowing out and side-lining, local government needs a better deal than the devolution options that have been on the table up to now. Our interviews show that local government is dissatisfied with the process of devolution, which until recently relied on competitive bidding for small pots of funding, with reduced and restricted capacity in local authorities. To overcome this, however, will require a radical shift in culture and attitudes towards local government, building trust and mutual understanding and purpose.

There is also a perception that the government lacks capacity at the centre in Whitehall which undermines its ability to engage constructively in devolution from a strategic perspective. Partly to address this, but also to join up governance efforts across tiers, there needs to be more civil servants with experience of local government working in senior Whitehall positions. Beyond a change in government policy, there needs to be a mechanism to challenge ‘treasury brain’, with its prioritisation of growth over other outcomes and the insistence on exercising tight control across Whitehall as well as local government.

In the sections below the paper looks at English devolution through the lenses of efficiency and effectiveness. Some, like the OECD, suggest that decentralisation is a means to improve these aspects of policy making, achieving intended outcomes at a bigger scale and with fewer wasted resources. Efficiency and effectiveness are, however, hampered by the fragmentation in the system.

The impact of devolution on effectiveness

Effectiveness, understood as a measure of how far policy achieves its aims, is hampered at local level by several factors, including underfunding and low levels of trust that persist between central and local government, but also between councils and their partners within combined authority areas.

The OECD has argued that decentralisation increases effectiveness, efficiency and equality, leading to measurable economic gains. In the main, this is because it enables governments to tailor policy to local needs and gives local people more control and ownership over policy programmes. However, analysis of OECD data by Rodrı́guez-Pose and Ezcurra (2011) raises questions about how far decentralisation alone can be expected to yield benefits in efficiency, effectiveness and equality:

“the possibility of matching policies to the specific needs of the population may simply be a pipedream, as local and regional governments often do not have the necessary powers, resources, capacity and capabilities to be able to adequately address local problems. Inadequate or unfunded mandates are common in processes of decentralization and tend to seriously compromise the potential of subnational governments to deliver better targeted and more efficient policies than those of national governments.”

Hoole et al (2023) have highlighted a further barrier in the “catch 22” of English devolution, whereby local government institutions are required to demonstrate their capacity to deliver on the extra responsibilities and to manage the increased funding that would come with devolution, yet they have been stripped of just that capacity after being at the front line of fiscal retrenchment for years.

One of the enduring problems that a vision for English devolution must overcome is the dysfunctional relationship that exists between central and local government more broadly. Giovannini & Davies (2024) note that a ‘Westminster and Whitehall know best’ attitude “is hardwired into the governance of England and is reflected in the high degree of power exercised by key departments (in particular the Treasury, through the system of disaggregated departmental governance) – which, in practice, allows central government to claw back control.” The chief executive from a North West unitary authority told us “I think there is a parent / child relationship going on between the Civil Service and LG. Trust comes with respect and trust can never be built without it. In the normal trust building respect model, you’ve got to spend time with people. It’s impossible to do so without.”

While metro Mayors have improved direct relationships between local leaders and ministers of officials in Whitehall in many cases, the structure of combined authorities and relationships with local leaders can limit effectiveness. A leader from a council in Greater Manchester told us that “Despite negotiation of the trailblazer devo deal there isn’t a lot of buy in. A lot of that was building on the energy of Michael Gove. In devo negotiations, well hold on a second just because your minister agrees to it doesn’t mean that we do. Gove and Andy [Burnham] became quite good friends out of it.”

The leader from GM highlighted the “power of devolution to do things quickly” but cautioned that budgeting decisions can often be “stuck at GM level not enough down to your level”.

A chief executive from a local authority in Yorkshire told us that “the government haven’t put much central capacity into the devolution deal’ that has been set up in West Yorkshire. They told us that ‘there is an absolute lack of trust”. Arguing that the government has sought the quickest and easiest solution to shift the problem of regional governance, the chief executive told us:

“The way the mayoral thing was done is a superb case. Manchester had a real ability to negotiate to have some levers to make a difference. The first thing central govt wanted to do then was to production line it everywhere else. They quickly found that this wouldn’t work as ‘one size doesn’t fit all.’”

A CEO from a south west authority agreed, saying that “it does feel like the interest has waned in devolution, feels more ‘processy’ than it did before.” This comment refers to the previous government, though, and interest in devolution has revived under the new Labour government. The upcoming White Paper will give an indication of the level of leadership and vision relative to process.

A further problem that has been highlighted in the research literature and in our interviews was the connection with the public in city-region areas. Combined authorities and devolution are either “nowhere near the agenda for residents” or “people just saw it as another layer of bureaucracy” and are more hostile. The South West chief executive made a similar point, arguing that:

“The difficulty with CAs like the West of England is that they’re much too small and end up with another layer of government that creates contention in decision making.”

From the outset, researchers suggested there was an opportunity to leverage the changes in English devolution and strengthen democratic participation that was in danger of being missed (Gains 2015; Richards & Smith 2015). One recent paper highlighted the lack a mechanism to ensure accountability to local communities, while favouring accountability to Westminster and internally within combined authority areas (Newman et al 2024).

A chief executive we spoke to from the South East argued that:

“we need a national policy framework and a constitutional settlement for local government – I am now completely persuaded – tinkering that gov can do – no matter what work or plans you have in place, local government doesn’t feel like it has much stability.”

Meanwhile a chief executive from within the West Midlands said that:

“Local and regional should be delivered together but there is a lack of trust between the two. Sometimes combined authorities are seen as a replacement to local government.

A chief executive from a council in West Yorkshire, within in a combined authority area, said

“But if we had sufficient money we would invest in community infrastructure. Some libraries are gone, GP surgeries are gone, we can’t maintain roads and parks, there’s no bandwidth for discretionary investments. We are a blue light service – doing statutory spending.”

Spending on improving wellbeing outcomes, making state services more effective, has been squeezed significantly, which the chief executive thought would have a direct impact on local people, who would express their feelings at the ballot box. They went on to describe how the lack of funding stifles innovation and capacity for effective policy delivery:

“If we had sufficient money – we would be able to take risks again, try things out, think of new ways. We have secured some money over five years for investment into research and investment – that’s been stripped out. We urgently need to rebuild capacity to do more than keep going. If we were funded properly we could still make more progress on issues of social justice – inequality, inclusion. Just to have that ability to reinvest into stuff that would help us create wellbeing for people.”

As it is, local government relies on soft power and the ability to convene partners to achieve certain aims: “our partners have more resource than we do. “We work with others on funding they agree to deploy.”

Does devolution always mean efficiency?

There is a system-wide crisis in local government finance that devolution since 2014 has not offered a solution to. Senior council figures have told us that without a finance settlement there will remain significant inefficiencies in the system.

Outside the core funding system that provides the bulk of local government money, and which has been drastically reduced in the last 15 years, councils have, until recently, been obliged to bid for funding through small pots in competitive tendering processes. In our interviews, this process was consistently highlighted as deeply flawed and actively undermining council attempts to join up policy and services across local places. The pots themselves are intended for tightly demarcated purposes, largely to do with aesthetic and infrastructural “pride in place” projects that do not necessarily meet local objectives. The process itself is wasteful of resources and capacity, with many councils telling us that they were unsuccessful on at least one occasion, often more. Moreover, the criteria for deciding how to allocate these pots centrally is unclear and inconsistently applied, so council leaders feel that they are on the back foot from the very beginning.

However, the issue with funding is wider and deeper than the recent emphasis on competitive funding bids. The leader of a council in a combined authority area was specific that the funding system across local government undermines the aims of devolution:

“The financing that overlays it [devolution]. From my point of view flexibility starts first and foremost with funding, if you haven’t got the ability to raise more funds locally, then local govt will always be limping along. But the lack of flexibility that most areas report in how the money can be spent, according to Treasury Green Book frameworks, diminishes the autonomy and flexibility required to tailor policy to local circumstances”

Again, despite ten years of debate and practice, fiscal devolution remains an elusive subject for debate with Whitehall. Retention of business rates dominates, with promises for 100% control or 75% being promised and piloted at various points, though not taken forward. According to the Institute for Government in the 2020/21 financial year, devolved taxes made up just 9% of all taxes in England. In her first Budget as Chancellor Rachel Reeves demonstrated again that she has little appetite for fiscal devolution. The Budget does include a commitment to multi-year funding settlements by 2025-26, and to a simplification of grant funding, but other fiscal reforms that might support decentralisation were not presented.

There is clearly an urgent need to align the local government funding formula with commitments to devolution and with the responsibilities that councils have for delivery (Rodriguez-Pose & Bover 2024). A working paper from Northumbria University argued showed findings from research on authorities in the north east that “In the case of a successful bid, the sum awarded is frequently insufficient and needs to be matched with other funds to address the socioeconomic needs of the area.” (Forbes et al 2022). In countries like Germany there is a constitutional requirement that any additional responsibility local authorities take on must be accompanied by sufficient funding.

A further roll out of devolution across the country needs a built in, coherent and consistent approach to funding. Drawing on original detailed research of the funding system for local government in Italy, Germany and Japan, LGIU and partners at Northumbria University developed a set of lessons for a future government to take forward with regard to devolution. They were:

  1. Rework the local government needs assessment [the Fair Funding Review]. The Government launched a ‘fair funding review’ in 2016, but this has not progressed since a consultation in 2018. The fair funding review would have reassessed a range of indicators of local need and taken decisions about the relative weighting of those indicators. If this process were completed, it would lay the ground for redistributing funds between local authorities more closely in line with an assessment of need. It was also recommended to simplify the range of indicators used substantially. Among other things, this would help to ensure that funding reflects changes in population and need between authorities since 2013.
  2. Establish a systematic form of territorial equalisation between local authorities. England is an international outlier in not having a systematic form of territorial equalisation, that ensures solidarity and parity in needs-based revenue between location. Germany, Italy, and Japan all have forms of redistributions of major income streams to ensure that all location have access to resources. This would help to reduce the risk of increased Section 114 notices. It would also recognise that not all areas have access to buoyant local income streams and would open the door to wider participation in devolution and some form of local decision-making and accountability
  3. Develop a long-term programme exploring assigning national tax revenues to local authorities. It would be a pro-active vehicle for consultation on government proposals, raising of emerging issues, negotiation of financial agreements and mediation of conflict. This would form an essential pillar of a more developed settlement, or concordat between local and national government. Germany, Italy, and Japan all have comparable institutions that are well-resourced, embedded, and respected. Such institutions practise intergovernmental coordination and strengthen relationships between the tiers.

To integrate these proposals it is important to develop a system-wide solution for local government funding that would ensure a basket of fiscal and administrative tools which can be tailored to local needs. A chief executive from West Yorkshire supported the thrust of these recommendations, arguing that “we need a plan focused on wellbeing rather than delivery of statutory services: funding about redistribution that is longer term; fiscal freedoms in relation to local tax base; and a business base reset and fair funding review. We are £35m down per year because they haven’t done that and our council tax level is suppressed

How can devolution avoid fragmentation?

When responsibility for policy, along with funding, accountability and capacity to deliver are split into smaller institutional units at different levels, the result is fragmentation which hampers policymaking effectiveness. Firstly, there are challenges presented by the fragmentation in governance that remain in place from central government and Whitehall, down to combined authority and local areas.

Local authorities and combined authorities are accountable to multiple Whitehall departments for the various service areas they deliver on, which slows the breakdown of the silos that exist in central government (Coyle et al 2023), while even those areas with devolved powers do not have big enough levers to overcome the institutional disconnections and boost their place-based growth strategies. The government has tasked the 12 elected city-region mayors with producing “local growth plans”. The plans are intended to identify and unblock barriers to growth, attracting inward investment into local areas. This will require capacity at the local level to do this, but also support from Whitehall and consistency and clarity in communications to set the direction. Many in local government have expressed concern at the rate of churn within Westminster and Whitehall’s attitude towards local growth, which have obfuscated attempts to steer strategic decisions (Hoole et al 2024). Adding more layers to the policy mix, without adequate planning for how they fit together, the roles, powers, and responsibilities, not to mention getting the sequencing right to plan effectively.

Making plain what the aims and pathways are for English devolution, as well as local government’s role in helping to achieve key policy objectives across the country would surely help to boost effectiveness. A council leader from a unitary council in an area with a devolution deal said that

“Organisational fragmentation doesn’t help, constant rearrangement of deckchairs in health, for example. It’s almost two years since we had Integrated Care Boards, shouldn’t we be changing that by now. We need to talk about the social care spectrum, starting with keeping them out of hospital and ending with getting them out of hospital, rather than delayed discharges.”

It has been argued (Blakely & Evans 2023) that elected mayors have a complex role building relationships with and being accountable to Westminster and Whitehall as well as with their voters and council leaders, often from across the political spectrum. They also have a personal mandate, as well as affiliation with their party. This does create some complexity, but council leaders also operate within similar dynamics. They too must cultivate relationships with local residents, their councillors and Westminster to get things done.

Some interviewees questioned the logic of introducing new mayoral leaders on this basis. A West Midlands council chief executive asked: “Why wouldn’t you take seriously the leader of Kent or Hampshire?” The profile of a directly elected mayor can create its own challenges. For example, they “could pick up the phone and speak to the Secretary of State…” but when they “stray into areas like public health, leaders rightly say tanks off our lawns and therefore leaders don’t want him talking about areas about local government reform.”

Future government policy towards devolution in England should grasp the nettle of the complex layers of institutional and funding responsibilities that are the result the episodic and ad hoc nature of Westminster’s approach to regional policy and devolution in England over many decades. How combined authorities and other devolution deals are intended to cohere with structures like Integrated Care Boards, or with funding pots targeted at different places and scales is an important question.

Levelling Up and “Missions”

The previous Conservative government’s iteration of devolution policy in England was the levelling up agenda, born out of a campaign slogan adopted by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson around the 2019 election. The government published a White Paper in 2022 which set out 12 missions for the levelling up programme, including living standards, research and development, transport, digital connectivity, education, skills, health, well-being, pride in place, housing, crime and local leadership.

There were three funds from which councils could bid to support local projects:

  • the towns fund – consisting of the town deals fund and future high streets fund (England only);
  • the levelling up fund – focusing on “local priorities that have a visible impact on people and communities across all parts of the UK”;
  • the UK shared prosperity fund – replacing EU funding and aiming to “increase life chances and build pride in place across the UK”.

The evidence for the lack of success of the levelling up agenda is unequivocal. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) recently found no evidence at all that levelling up has led to improvements in tackling regional inequality. Furthermore, the PAC found that less than 12% of the money allocated through levelling up has been spent. A total of 618 funding bids were rejected, while just 216 were successful, and very few of the successful bids have led to completed projects.

Ahead of the general election in July Labour developed its own “mission-driven” approach to government. The “mission” approach is to coordinate different arms of government around a shared vision and measurable outcomes, in order to tackle long-term, complex and cross-cutting social and policy challenges. The five missions Labour aims to achieve in this way are:

  1. Kickstarting economic growth
  2. Making Britain a clean energy superpower
  3. Take back our streets (crime reduction)
  4. Break down barriers to opportunity
  5. Build an NHS fit for the future

It is telling that local government has a vital and integral role to play in aspects of all five missions, but did not feature prominently in the manifesto or subsequent policy announcements.

There is an opportunity for the government to use the mission approach as a tool for joining up and integrating services at the local level. There have been calls from within government, the sector and think tanks to look again at programmes like Total Place and other forms of place-based budgeting that integrate services across geographical areas in an attempt to overcome fragmentation and silos (Denham & Studdert (2024). Jim McMahon, a minister at MHCLG has backed the revival of total place. There are innovative examples within English local government to follow in this vein. “Wigan Deal” in Greater Manchester and the work done by Barking & Dagenham council in London are two examples of more integrated delivery, combined with a democratic focus on citizens and communities, that ought to guide policymakers in Whitehall around the potential for local joining up.

Soon after the election, ministers announced the government’s intention to end the reliance on competitive bidding for ring-fenced funding pots, exemplified in the levelling up programme. We are yet to get a clear steer on what the alternative model of funding will be, however. There will be an important process to design a long-term funding model that local government should be directly involved in. Local Government Minister Angela Rayner has also moved away from the language and framework of “levelling up” to focus more closely on regional inequalities.

The focus on inequalities was also a feature of Gordon Brown’s Commission on the Future of the UK, which called for decentralisation as vital for reducing them across and between the regions. The Commission argued that even the largest city-region units were not large enough on their own to deliver on this priority. Instead, the Commission’s report called for governments and public bodies in towns and cities to come together at sufficient scale to coordinate strategic transport, industrial strategy, skills policy, spatial planning, trade and investment, as well as energy and environmental projects.

Councils have committed resources over recent years to unsuccessful and piecemeal competitive bids, or cutting back spending in important areas like research, planning, and strategy, not to mention in statutory functions. If they, or even just combined authorities, are to have a role in delivering the government’s missions then there will need to be serious consideration and action taken to bolster local government capacity.

Conclusion

We will soon know the contents of the Devolution White Paper, and will hopefully have some additional clarity on the direction of travel. In the debate that follows there will be an opportunity to shape the government’s approach around the needs, aspirations and concerns of local government itself. Local government will be essential to delivering many of the aims that the government in Westminster has set out, but fundamental issues will need to be addressed to enable that. Questions of structure and specific powers in specific places are important, of course. But many of the issues we highlight here relate to the culture of governance in Whitehall, longstanding financial challenges, and issues that permeate democratic politics in the UK and around the world.

If we can hold on to some key principles during the upcoming debate, and during the period of change that may follow, local government might have an optimistic future to look ahead to. As a sector local government needs to hold ministers’ feet to the fire and ensure that we continue to push for:

  • Clarity of purpose.
  • A solid constitutional foundation.
  • Metrics, evaluation and data to measure progress and build innovation.
  • A functional funding system as an essential component of devolution.
  • A clear vision for towns and rural areas, as well as city-regions.
  • Greater dialogue with local leaders as well as combined authority mayors.

English devolution has been episodic, ad hoc and incoherent. Some areas have pushed ahead with new “trailblazer” deals, while others have struggled to forge any agreement at all with Whitehall, or indeed to secure small funding pots for community amenities and infrastructure.

It is clear that the new Labour government intends to pursue further devolution as means of achieving growth, and the emphasis on mayoral combined authorities as the model of leadership and accountability is now evident. Big questions remain around the government’s vision for local government, public services and democratic reform as part of this push towards further devolution.

Without clarity on the aims and objectives, beyond growth, unanswered questions will linger about the related purpose of new combined authorities and different tiers of local government, not to mention how these different components coherently fit together.

The scope of devolution needs to be much broader than it has been conceived up to now. Before further rollout of English devolution, the government should pay urgent attention to how different programmes and initiatives align. Over the years, Westminster-led regional policy has taken different forms, from government offices of the regions (GOR) in the 1990s to Total Place pilots in 2009, combined authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships and Integrated Care Services in more recent years. Some of these, notably GOR, no longer exist, but others remain and weave a complex pattern of geographical governance.

Thus far directly elected mayors have driven policy change without holding many formal, or hard, powers themselves. Rather, they have relied on the “soft” powers that accompany their position, including the power to convene and to petition ministers for funding. As English devolution continues to develop and become an increasingly important tool for achieving policy aims, the Labour government should consider whether the introduction of formal powers for elected mayors would drive further and more wide-ranging policy innovations.

The upcoming White Paper and subsequent legislation should begin to address these questions as a matter of urgency.
Furthermore, if we are to continue expanding and deepening the policy commitment to English devolution, it is crucial that we build on a firm foundation of knowledge about what works. There are several dimensions to an analysis of effectiveness in local government that would assist our inquiry about the track record of city-region governance.

The outcomes that have occurred as a result of policy interventions are useful, but determining whether and how far these are due to the distinct interventions taken by a combined authority following a devolution deal is more challenging. This is especially difficult on the relatively short timescale since 2014. The Health Foundation research stands out in this regard because it controls for other variables and demonstrates the positive impact of devolved health policy on life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and self-reported wellbeing in Greater Manchester. Though, it must be said, many of the outcomes highlighted in the research were less dramatic or conclusive.

We can however determine the interventions that have been made in combined authorities and areas with a devolution deal and particularly ask whether they have been tailored to local circumstances, as we would expect to see.
Further questions might include whether the decision-making processes that lead to interventions across combined authorities have changed significantly from those prior to devolution, whether they are more participative, or draw on different inputs or sources of information, or whether more local partners are involved in shaping and delivering those policies.

Given the range of responsibilities that CAs have acquired, we might hope to see improved outcomes in specific policy areas like health, adult education and transport as an indicator of improved effectiveness. Further, with the emphasis on boosting economic growth that key figures like George Osborne placed on city-regions from the very outset in 2014 this is an area that we might expect to see tangible improvements in policy effectiveness.

There should be a more systematic and robust approach to data, especially where significant changes in governance continue to roll out. Social and economic indicators would indicate whether devolution has helped reduce inequalities within and between city-regions, including factors like income distribution, education, and healthcare outcomes.

Meanwhile, there is a democratic challenge that should be addressed in the White Paper. There needs to be a robust assessment of the ways that devolution has or has not empowered communities, particularly those who are more distant or marginalised from the policy-making process, and whether it has helped to strengthen their representation in local governance. Connected to this, the government should work with combined authorities to help understand resource distribution.

Finally, to continue the rollout of devolution beyond the current city-regions we need a coherent and shared understanding of the aims and objectives of the policy. That would help facilitate the right baselines so that we can draw on available data to evaluate changes that are made as a result. Then the government can work with local administrations to develop transparent and useful performance indicators, particularly for efficiency, effectiveness, and equality, which we can use to regularly measure and assess progress over time.

References

Blakely, G. & Evans, B. (2023) “Steps in the right direction? Devolution in GreaterManchester and Liverpool City Region: the first mayoral term” Heseltine Institute: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3172457/1/PB_3_6.pdf

Coyle, D. & Muhtar, A. (2023) Levelling up policies and the failure to learn, Contemporary Social Science, 18:3-4, 406-427, DOI: 10.1080/21582041.2023.2197877

Denham, J. and Studdert, J. (2024) Place-Based Public Service Budgets, New Local; https://www.newlocal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Place-Based-Public-Service-Budgets_New-Thinking.pdf;

Forbes, C. Liddle, J. & Strutt, J. (2022) “Levelling up in the North East region: what has been achieved in the last three years? An Assessment” Northumbria University: northumbria-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/news_duplicate/documents/pdf/working-paper-final.pdf

Gains, F. (2015) “Metro mayors: Devolution, democracy and the importance of getting the ‘Devo Manc’ design right” Representation 51 pp. 425-437;

HM Government (2024) Invest 2035The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6711176c386bf0964853d747/industrial-strategy-green-paper.pdf

Hoole, C. Collinson, S. & Newman, J. (2023) “England’s catch-22: institutional limitations to achieving balanced growth through devolution” Contemporary Social Science: https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2023.2203122

Kippin, S. & Morphet, J. (2023) “Coordination, agenda-setting, and future planning: the role of Combined Authorities during the COVID-19 Pandemic” International Review of Public Policy 5:3, DOI: 10.4000/irpp.3716

Labour Party (2022) A New Britain:Renewing ourDemocracy andRebuilding ourEconomyReport of the Commissionon the UK’s Future: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Commission-on-the-UKs-Future.pdf

Labour Party (2023) A “mission-driven” government to end “sticking plaster” politics’ https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/5-Missions-for-a-Better-Britain.pdf.

MHCLG (2024) “Deputy Prime Minister kickstarts new devolution revolution to boost local power” https://www.gov.uk/government/news/deputy-prime-minister-kickstarts-new-devolution-revolution-to-boost-local-power

Newman, J. Warner, S. Kenny, M.  & Westwood, A. (2024) “Rebuilding local democracy: the accountability challenge in English devolution” Bennett Institute: https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rebuilding-local-democracy-WP.pdf

North East Mayoral Combined Authority (2024) North East Mayoral Combined Authority Deeper Devolution Deal, GOV.UK. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65e8341b08eef600115a5637/North_East_Deeper_Devolution_Deal.pdf

Paun, A. Pope, T. Fright, M. McKee, R. & Allen, B. (2024) A new deal for England: How the next government should complete the job of English devolution, Institute for Government: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-05/How-the-next-government-should-complete-english-devolution.pdf

Richards, D. and Smith, M. J. (2015) ‘Devolution in England, the British Political Tradition and the Absence of Consultation, Consensus and Consideration’, Representation, 51, 385–401

Richards, D., Warner, S., Smith, M. J., & Coyle, D. (2023). Crisis and state transformation: Covid-19, levelling up and the UK’s incoherent state. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 16(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsac038

Rodrı́guez-Pose and Ezcurra (2011) “Is fiscal decentralization harmful for economic growth? Evidence from the OECD countries” Journal of Economic Geography 11 (4) pp.619–643

Weakley, K. (2024) “Devolution and economic growthShadow minister backs ‘total place’ and brands reorganisation ‘a live question’” Local Government Chronicle https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/devolution-and-economic-growth/shadow-minister-backs-total-place-and-brands-reorganisation-a-live-question-17-01-2024/

Was this article helpful or relevant for you?

Was this article helpful or relevant for you?