The new government is keen to tell us that we are embarking upon a ‘devolution revolution’. After all, achieving many of the ambitious objectives that are before it – from decisively higher levels of economic growth to massive progress on decarbonisation – will hinge, in part, upon its ability to tackle the country’s high levels of overcentralisation.
But there is a deeper complexity to this story.
Yes, councils are once again being invited to come forward with proposals to form combined authorities that the centre will devolve powers to – but isn’t this just the policy of the last government, and are these authorities fit for purpose?
Yes, there is recognition that the Government’s national ‘missions’ will require empowered local delivery – but will this come with the autonomy required for tailoring approach to local needs and assets?
And yes, the commitment to shoring up local power and sustainability appears to be genuine: at long last, local authorities are promised multi-year settlements to help them plan their finances and to support the establishment of longer-term plans and projects. But it’s also impossible to ignore recent announcements on planning reform and local audit, which really do see assertive central government giving out marching orders to the rest of the system.
This is understandable.
The market for local audit has collapsed, leading to an extended backlog (pretty dangerous when the sector is also in the midst of a financial crisis), so getting assertive about the ‘backstop’ deadlines makes some sense. So too does a renewed requirement for ambitious local housing targets, with the implication that local authorities should be more willing to steamroll through the planning objections of residents. Housebuilding is at the heart of the Government’s push for economic growth, and has not been high enough for years.
For all that, these are centre-driven moves that are difficult to reconcile with the idea of a devolution revolution. What might a more radical and decentralised approach look like? Central audit frameworks could be supplemented by strong local oversight and accountability systems. A truly regionalised approach to planning, leaving open the possibility of giving communities enough autonomy to find grounds to agree to new development plans, could be possible too. Both of these seem like very distant prospects indeed.
For now, devolution continues to focus on England’s ‘missing’ regional tier. This reflects a clear line of continuity with the ‘levelling up’ agenda that sat at the heart of the last Government’s domestic agenda. And it’s important to note that the wave of devolution deals in recent years represents the most substantial development in local government policy for decades.
Nevertheless, this is not quite the revolution that the local government system needs. This is devolution by increments, and devolution as a narrowly-defined project. It leaves the fundamental structure of governance largely unchanged. And by focusing tightly on the creation of a regional (well, quasi-regional) layer, it misses the opportunity for what I have been calling whole system devolution, where regional, local constituent authorities, and hyper-local institutions are all aligned behind a shared vision and a fully decentralised array of powers to deliver on it.
Achieving anything like this will hinge on whether local systems have capacity and capability to handle new responsibilities. Many local authorities are already struggling under the weight of existing responsibilities, and the addition of new powers—without corresponding resources—risks exacerbating these pressures. Devolution could so easily turn into a burden for these strained systems, rather than the opportunity that it should be.
This would mean not only strengthened regional government, but action to address the other major gap that exists for most of England: a lack of hyper-local governance.
These smaller bodies, sitting closer to the communities they serve, could play a vital role in making devolution work from the ground up, closing the democratic deficit faced by most local systems, legitimising the larger-scale strategic projects of regional authorities, and connecting them with a granular understanding of the circumstances in neighbourhoods themselves.
This would call for a radical new model of governance, with more porous boundaries between the State and the communities that it serves: a genuinely useful evolution from the Parish and Town councils of today.
None of this will be possible until central government makes a decisive shift in its behaviour, and a pivot to a culture of ‘devolve by default’. Our research suggests that one of the principal barriers to such a change is the sheer complexity of local governance across England. The difficulties created by our current patchwork of layers and powers means central departments would be facing more work when devolving powers, rather than less – undermining the very case for change.
The new government’s commitment to devolution presents a historic opportunity to reshape the governance landscape in England. The success of this “revolution”, however, must ultimately be measured not only by the number of new Combined Authorities, but by the strength, resilience, and responsiveness of local governance across the entire country.
