The prime minister's push for English devolution is set to be messy and slow, carrying huge risks that Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham ignores at his peril, according to a detailed analysis of the government's plans.
The devolution agenda will be messy because Whitehall's ingrained anxiety about handing over money and power will lead to piecemeal deals, starting with a Cornwall agreement that will lack the much-promised driving force of a newly minted mayor. The process is also expected to be slow, with reappointed housing secretary Angela Rayner's reorganisation of local government mired in judicial reviews.
Legal challenges and debt division stall reorganisation
Rayner's plan involves creating hundreds of unitary authorities where counties and districts once ruled. Some councils have accumulated huge debts over the last decade, and it remains unclear how these debts will be divided among the new entities. Claims have emerged that proposals to split some existing county councils into three, four, or even five unitary authorities are politically motivated, with Labour accused of seeking to retain a presence in local government through gerrymandering.
Last week, Hertfordshire county council and Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council became the latest local authorities to write to Rayner seeking clarity on how the government reached its decisions in their areas. A week earlier, Lincolnshire county council did the same. Further south, Essex county, which is to be divided into five unitary authorities, saw the recommendation of Whitehall officials for just three new authorities overruled by Rayner.
Timeline and institutional capacity concerns
Supposedly, all this infighting will be resolved by Christmas, and England will be ready for an entirely new map of local authorities by next May when fresh elections will be held. However, these councils and combined authorities, many of which are also embryonic, will struggle to become public institutions with verve, drive, knowledge, and experience capable of making good decisions in time for the next election in 2029.
Devolution is the prime minister's big idea, one that will energise Britain's spirit of enterprise, so how it works will be crucial. He cannot risk Reform UK and the Conservatives crowing about another broken promise, or claims that the British state is clogged with officials waiting for their generous pension and in need of a Trumpian deep clean.
No evidence for structural reform benefits
Rayner's plan is rooted in a belief that local government has failed to work properly and that structural reform is the answer, saving much more over the longer term than the estimated £2bn initial cost. According to the analysis, this belief has no basis in academic study. It would be a relief to all involved in local government and devolution to know that somewhere in the world there was data illustrating how this kind of structural change improves services, saves money, and, as Burnham would have it, supercharges economic growth.
Unfortunately, there isn't any such evidence. It is, to use a well-worn cliche, just rearranging deckchairs, not least because the same people will be taking up the same roles in new offices, and there will need to be five head offices instead of one in Essex. As the Institute for Government says: “Structural reforms can be necessary, and useful. But there is nothing inherently valuable about them.”
What improves services are reforms to the way public officials work, which means difficult discussions with trade unions. There needs to be a level of accountability that is absent in significant areas of the public sector. It will also be crucial to change how public organisations relate to each other, how they work together, breaking down old silos and protective practices, and giving more information to local people, including them in decision making going forward.
International comparisons and financial dangers
Geoff Mulgan, a University College London professor and former boss of the Nesta thinktank, says devolution must answer basic questions people should know, such as how private and public services are delivered and who determines the outcome, from broadband to banking. “Otherwise it will remain entirely legitimate for populist politicians to say that people have lost control and to claim that they are the answer,” he says.
In most countries where devolution works well, the establishment of local structures was organic, not imposed. Germany grew out of mini-kingdoms, and the US started as a collection of states. The Länder in Germany and US states agreed to a federal government while retaining a good deal of power for themselves. The UK is more like France, having always been centralised, gaining in many ways from that and losing out in others. It will be difficult to impose a new political structure on England that devolves money and power to brand new councils and mayors, or in the case of Cornwall, a cabinet committee.
The public will rightly be sceptical when so many councils under the current system have fallen for the idea that they can raise themselves up if only they borrow lots of money and “invest it” in new stuff. A new high street with hotels and leisure facilities was Woking borough council’s dream until it crashed, £2bn in debt. To say there are huge dangers in the world of finance when local council leaders are let loose, armed with a mission to generate growth, is to understate the situation, with catastrophic dangers waiting.
