The end of 'centralise by default'? CPP responds to the Devolution White Paper
17 December 2024
6 minute read
“It’s about time”. Few would disagree with Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s statement as she yesterday introduced the English Devolution White Paper. Its publication marks an important moment in providing a sense of direction for how this government plans to reverse the historic premise of ‘centralise by default’. Given the country’s well documented challenges in terms of centralisation and regionally unequal life outcomes, we must be realistic about how far and how quickly new devolved powers can help shift the dial, but they nevertheless represent a pragmatic first step.
The White Paper sets out a move to put some much needed structure and coherence around a devolution agenda that has until now been based on an unclear patchwork of closed door dealmaking. Its framework proposes three tiers of authorities: ‘established strategic authorities’ made up of the six most mature mayoral combined authorities, less established ‘mayoral strategic authorities’, and ‘foundation strategic authorities’ in areas without mayoral devolution. For the third tier, local government reorganisation is proposed, which will see district and some small unitary councils merging to form strategic authorities of around 500,000 residents.
In putting forward a new statutory framework of powers and responsibilities for each tier over planning and housing, transport, skills, and economic development, there will inevitably be challenges to iron out. There are valid concerns about reorganisation taking place in the context of local authority resources being stretched to breaking point in many places. The unitarisation of two-tier (district and county) councils to a single larger unit, bringing together responsibilities for adult and children’s social care with other services such as strategic planning and bin collection, could at its worst see the all too familiar story for large unitary authorities of resources being eaten by social care at the expense of everything else. This is why the question of putting local government funding on a more secure long-term footing remains vital if outcomes are to improve. Questions have also been raised as to how much mayors can truly be empowered to improve outcomes if they lack any of the fiscal tax raising levers enjoyed by many of their European counterparts, even at the most basic level of being able to levy so-called tourist taxes.
There are also concerns that the balance of power being tipped decisively towards Combined Authority Mayors and larger units of local government will risk further alienating residents, making it harder to influence decisions made further away from communities. The paper itself has little to offer on community power and investment in neighbourhoods, where our own work with Local Trust has shown the importance of working with communities, supporting the development of local social infrastructure to turn the dial on deep rooted inequalities.
Despite these valid concerns, it must be acknowledged that the path to meaningful decentralisation is a long and often winding one. We should see this White Paper as the first step in sketching out a roadmap, rather than as the final product. Given the extent of public mistrust in the ability of the state at any level to enact positive change, offering greater clarity on where decision making power lies with a clear figurehead and source of accountability in the form of a mayor is an important start. As is addressing the policy siloes that don’t reflect the realities of how people live their lives, by making public services such as health provision geographically coterminous with combined authorities. The roll out of integrated funding settlements will also enable more strategic decision making – joining up skills with employment support, and housing with transport and other infrastructure developments. The urgency of ensuring this provides a framework for more meaningful engagement and participation in the decisions that matter to people’s lives shouldn’t be underplayed.
Herein lies a tension between different answers to the exam question of why our country fares so badly in terms of both inequalities between people and places, and productivity growth. The economic interventions needed to drive growth and innovation through clustering of high productivity sectors need to happen at scale, with the economic geographies proposed in the White Paper making sense. Meanwhile, the public service interventions needed to address poor health, skills, and employment outcomes, often require a hyperlocal approach that is sensitive to the complex challenges faced by different communities and focuses on unlocking the social capital that has been systemically eroded over a decade and a half of austerity.
CPP’s work over the past four years with a mixed geography of local and combined authorities through our Inclusive Growth Network has shown that innovation around economic growth and public service reform can and does take place across all tiers of government. The sweet spot is where effective public service delivery is harnessed as a key driver of growth that communities can see and feel in their daily lives, with this being the vital task for devolution to help unlock. We will continue to evolve the network as a vehicle for government to test and prototype innovations at the place level, and to boost the capacity of local and strategic authorities, not least through helping them to learn from each other on what works and why.
This White Paper marks an important moment, but devolution is the means, rather than an end in itself. There are no quick fixes to be found here in tackling the inequalities that blight us, but in providing a clearer framework for different tiers of government to work more effectively, this White Paper begins to chart the course towards a more positive future.