We need a new, bolder paradigm for devolution

This article is a guest post from Jamie Slagel, Change and Improvement Project Manager at Brent Council. Jamie previously worked at Oxfordshire County Council, supporting Senior Management and Cabinet to develop a clear policy position and ask for MHCLG.

The prevailing paradigm of English devolution policy has served its course – especially so 15 years after its inception. The recent Labour White Paper on English Devolution neatly ties up that particular paradigm with a pretty bow. It formalises the role of strategic authorities and their relationship to local and central government while also beefing up a coherent set of powers and roles for mayors—and setting a clear goal for universal coverage by the end of this parliament. This is all good stuff, but compare it to other OECD countries and it’s not nearly devolutionary enough.

It’s time to enter a new paradigm—one that builds on our early approaches to devolution and develops a far deeper and more radical vision.

How successful have the last 15 years been?

I think we need to level with ourselves: while English devolution policy has made for good policy, it hasn’t been sufficiently devolutionary, and it’s certainly not been revolutionary.

Devolution deals to date (and now the English Devolution White Paper) have really focused on creating sub-regional authorities that primarily deliver what have traditionally been local council responsibilities in a more strategic manner (e.g. housing, transport). And let’s be clear: I think they’ve been a great success. At the same time, they’ve increased rather than decreased centralisation. So it isn’t really “transferring more powers out of Westminster and into the hands of local people”, in the words of Angela Rayner, nor “giving local leaders more power, more money, and an even greater say on how their areas are run”, per Michael Gove.

In fact, my analysis of the House of Commons’ summaries of English devolution deals until March 2024 suggests that deals have almost as often devolved power down as they have ‘sucked up’ powers from lower tiers of government.

Not only has English devolution policy not been particularly devolutionary, it certainly hasn’t been revolutionary. Where the deals have genuinely given combined authorities (now strategic authorities) more freedom, they have often simply removed Government obstacles that should never have existed and established joint working relationships that should always have! Even the big-ticket items are insufficiently bold. Investment funds over 30 years are great, but they often equate to just 1-2% of the revenue budgets of constituent local authorities (less as inflation goes up…). Similarly the adult education budget. They will not be sufficient to reverse years of growing regional inequality. And integrated settlements—the prize of the devolutionary offer—are great, but they were also available to regional development agencies in 2002-3. In particular, it doesn’t feel like Whitehall has succeeded in devolving powers and funding.

These big-ticket items are genuinely making a difference, but they feel like they should be the floor of our vision, not the ceiling.

And of course, all of this has been in the context of many other policies which have either centralised or moved power further from local communities.

That is to say: English devolution policy of the last 15 years has been a success—but not really a success of devolving powers and funding, especially out of Whitehall.

How does Labour’s White paper relate to this? I do think it sneaks in a fairly low-key ‘devolutionary vision’—but it’s more ‘structures and relationships’ than ‘funding and powers’:

• Clear tripartite typologies of local-strategic-national government and foundation-mayoral-established strategic government
• Clear move to larger scale (populations of 1.5-2m) and universal mayoral coverage
• Alignment of public sector geographies
• Stronger and fuller system for mayors to inhabit within the political ecosystem: sitting on the Council of Nations and Regions, the Mayoral Council, ICPs, the Mayoral Data council; playing a crucial role in Local Growth Plans; and having a clear mandate as “place leader” – leaders beyond Whitehall

But this vision was delivered alongside significant reorganisation. And, irrespective of where you stand on local government reorganisation, it will almost certainly mean far fewer politicians and more planning decisions made by far larger organisations.

Nevertheless, the White Paper finally puts to paper the principles and policies of English devolution from the last 15 years, neatly tying up the existing devolution paradigm in a pretty bow—and setting the foundation for a far bolder vision for the next 10 years.

A new, bolder vision

The context I’ve outlined is important in judging the current devolution paradigm against its own stated goals. But there’s no point festering on the past. As Jonathan Carr-West says “as a sector, we need to rise to the challenges the White Paper presents and to fill some of the gaps that it leaves.” Even further, I think that local government must develop and advocate for a strong, shared vision for the next stage of English devolution. One that genuinely devolves powers down to lower levels, including beefed-up strategic authorities, local government, and a revitalised ecosystem of hyperlocal community organisations. After all, so many of the powers now in the English Devolution Bill were originally proposals compelling laid out by early mayors like Andy Burnham. Now is the time to compellingly lay out a new vision so it might come to fruition over the next decade.

I think this bold vision should aim to:

• Establish a strong vision for ~10 regional governments
• Devolve significant powers and funding out of Whitehall, and into Strategic and local authorities respectively—e.g. employment & skills, education, welfare and benefits, & probation
• Consider the role of local/regional government in delivering utilities like water, energy, & broadband
• Formalise the roles of local and regional government mitigating and adapting to climate change, revitalising nature, and tackling pollution
• Full-throated fiscal devolution, including the major grants that flow down to us (e.g. housing, transport, flooding, retrofit)
• Regional multilateral development banks to tackle regional inequality and drive region-sensitive investment
• Introduce assemblies that can hold mayors accountable, which evolve into legislative assemblies whose members can act as regional politicians—alongside citizens’ assemblies as a ‘second chamber’
• Build robust in-house capacity and capability to deliver where reliance on the private sector is draining resources (e.g. construction workforce, children’s care homes, data and digital expertise)
• Re-cultivate vibrant hyperlocal democracy including community organising and citizens’ panels

Devolving power of out Whitehall: Regional and local government should be viewed as the default deliverer of public services. Regional government should be viewed as the go-to government tier for developing integrated infrastructure plans: housing and development, transport, water & sewage, broadband & connectivity, and energy connections. Meanwhile, local councils would be responsible for delivering some of that infrastructure. Mayors could begin to take on the role of police and crime commissioner and regional authorities could also oversee fire and rescue. Meanwhile local councils could take on administrative responsibility for welfare and benefits; net zero (e.g. retrofit, local area energy planning), climate adaptation, and biodiversity; and probation and rehabilitation.

The one service I do think should be left alone is health—we should give the current ICSs fair time to bed in before even thinking about further change.

Regional government—the Goldilocks zone: The current approach—creating ~30 strategic authorities—would only bring together a few local authorities, especially post-reorganisation. The mayoral table will be too busy, and central government will continue to find it difficult to engage us all, re-creating an existing problem. Instead, we should go bigger to find the ‘goldilocks’ zone where authorities are genuinely attuned to the different needs of each region, while not being so small as to awkwardly rub up against unitaries.

Citizens’ assemblies and hyperlocal democracy: With the announcement of local government reorganisation, there is an even more pressing need to not only set up structures for, but also direct funding towards, participatory and hyperlocal democracy. Communities can and should play a crucial role shaping infrastructure and housing, tackling climate change, restoring natural spaces, supporting people into employment, and providing care.

This could include citizens’ assemblies to hold mayors and their assemblies accountable, local citizens’ panels on issues from leisure to transport (especially in unparished areas), Community Right to Buy, Community Ownership Funds, reinvesting successful investments back into communities, and significant investment into a hollowed-out VCS sector. Perhaps more radically, there should be a presumption towards providing communities a financial and decision-making stake in most major infrastructure developed by local, regional, and even central government.

Water: If there’s one long-term failure of public policy that stands out from the pack (except maybe housing), it must be water: poor quality and severe underinvestment in infrastructure, sewage discharges, increasing prices to households, mounting water company debt, inadequate flood defences, and failure to prepare for the water stresses of a climate-changed future. Yes, Labour are currently ruling out public sector control and delivery of water. But as a sector, local government should develop a clear and compelling vision for robust regional delivery of water and sewage infrastructure and services, including flood and drought prevention, adaptation, and land use planning.

Infrastructure integration: Water connections are already acting as a block on housing development, as are energy connections. It makes sense to bring various aspects of infrastructure planning and development together so that the sum of our infrastructure is greater than its parts: housing is a national mission, but we cannot build houses in isolation—they need energy, water, broadband, public transport, access to greenspace, etc. Integrating infrastructure planning could unlock delivery that is sensitive to local needs.

Regional economies: Regional authorities should have much stronger fiscal devolution including the ability to transform a deeply outdated and inequitable council tax system and retain some income tax and VAT to incentivise raising local people’s living standards, among other things. At the same time, we should develop a sophisticated set of independent but aligned multilateral regional development banks which share resources with the explicit goal of reversing regional inequality. Regional government may also develop a public banking offer to make access to finance more equitable, prevent bad debt, and steward investment towards key regional goals—decentralising a London-centric financial sector.

Strong in-house capacity and capability: We have a national mission to build more housing—and yet so often the housing that is built is poor quality, not truly affordable, and environmentally irresponsible. Local government budgets are suffering due to rapidly escalating costs of children’s placements. Homelessness costs are skyrocketing due to a lack of social housing and an unaffordable private rental sector. We have large infrastructure backlogs. We are going to need to build, and we are going to need to build right, in a way that benefits—and so is more likely to be supported by—communities. So we mustn’t repeat mistakes by relying on external companies, and instead should cultivate in-house design and construction capacity and capability. Similarly with data and digital and provision of care placements: we should invest in our own and not rely on outsourcing.

Devolution for rural areas: A stronger focus on environment, water, connectivity, and public transport would create a clearer sense of purpose for rural strategic authorities. Regional and national investment banks / wealth funds could invest in better rural public transport, the agricultural workforce, and enabling environmental recovery.

The government has set out that strategic authorities may propose additional functions. Now it’s time for the local government sector to develop strong proposals and take on those functions—and we should do so together, not as individual authorities.

Since 2010, the prevailing paradigm of English devolution has delivered a strong foundation—particularly the mayoral model. But to shift power out of Whitehall, allocate funding more effectively, tackle regional inequality, bring communities into decision-making, and tailor policy to local needs, we must now develop a much bolder vision for the next 10 years.