Localis Responds: English Devolution White Paper
So there it is then. After months of speculation, the gauntlet for the most significant rewiring of central-local state functionality in decades has been laid down. While this particular set piece has only been in play since the election in July, it also represents a significant step forward in a longer-term process: the gradual reshaping of English local government in the image of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
While the exact timeline for the much vaunted ‘completion of the map’ remains somewhat vague, by the time we go back to the national polls in 2029 there will undoubtedly be more mayoral combined authorities and fewer local authorities. And, given that the strong central government preference for this model has survived the first change in government in 14 years and at least three significantly different Conservative administrations before that, it seems safe to bet that it will survive whatever the result of the next general election.
The English Devolution White Paper is a significant piece of work, representing a genuine attempt to grapple with a number of problems blighting policy delivery in England. We could talk about the Kremlinology of the document – what the Treasury put in, what the Treasury took out, what Number 10 thinks about unitarisation – until Christmas. But given that no one of sound mind should really want to do that, this initial reaction will look at a few policy areas covered off in the white paper through the prism of two tests, which are not necessarily complementary:
- What does it mean for local autonomy to deliver placemaking and economic development?
- What does it mean for achieving the goals the government was elected to achieve?
In asking these questions, we can try to tease out some of the areas where the conversation between the central and local state can be developed in the months ahead.
Unitarisation
This is, particularly for the many public servants employed by district councils or unitaries deemed unsustainable, a big one. It’s been the subject of feverish speculation since the announcement (in a Treasury release, rather than from MHCLG) that moving to unitary councils was on the cards. The complexity of local government has been a source of frustration for policy wonks and policymakers alike for years. Yet if you’re wondering how important the issue is to the average voter, note that for most major news publications the lead item of interest in the run up to this white paper was “contactless travel in Manchester”. What is of importance to the average voter is whether their local services can be delivered effectively and efficiently, which is very much the idea behind this policy.
The evidence for how effective this can be is conditional, much of it drawn from the CCN/PwC research from 2020 cited directly in the white paper. This work drew the conclusion that for unitarisation to work, the increase of population per council had to be significant and, crucially, the existing social care delivery system should not be fragmented. Much social care delivery by county councils covers areas with populations in the millions, so how the 500,000 minimum threshold of the white paper can avoid being wildly exceeded by new unitaries without further fragmenting the social care market will be a key sticking point to work out between central and local government over the coming months.
Even if the resulting new councils could somehow hit the average of 500,000 threshold whilst still maintaining meaningful savings, the white paper has little or nothing to say about what becomes of genuinely local governance in a country of such large administrative units beyond a vague tipping of the cap to parish councils. Yet we do already have, in many of these large county geographies, local policy delivery units called “district councils” – another important issue to thrash out is exactly how their functions can best be absorbed, learning from previous unitarisations in an attempt to put together a standard framework for the process.
The jury is very much out on what unitarisation means for local ability to deliver. In North Yorkshire, the early signs seem very positive. In other areas, failure to achieve the correct scale has meant that leadership often end up finding themselves back in financial crisis rather quicker than anticipated. There is much more compelling evidence, however, that the government’s goals of getting houses built will be aided, at least in the long-term, by the creation of authorities with wider boundaries, particularly where cities are better connected with their hinterlands (Oxford being the prime example). In any case, all this is likely to take a while, despite rumours of multiple councils having oven-ready unitarisation plans ready to go, which leads us to the next point.
Time and capacity
The first thing to say on the issue of local government capacity is that the government have once again comprehensively ruled out any real fiscal autonomy at the local level. Even a tourism tax was too rich for the blood of HMT. The repeated heralding of a ‘devolution revolution’ is grating in this context but sadly I doubt anyone seriously expected a look at allowing local government the fiscal powers which are a basic systemic tenet in most other developed countries. There is some good stuff on trying to limit the damage of austerity and rebalance the scales through the recovery grant, as well as recommitting to consolidated funding settlements and the significant decentralisation of Whitehall through the Trailblazer settlements. But where local government finance is concerned, mark this one up as ‘same as it ever was’.
Where capacity in general is concerned, the government does face up to something that we have ran into repeatedly in recent research reports: that the strategic capacity of local government is at this point so depleted that any kind of fast restoration will require the pooling of competence. This is particularly true in the area of data analytics, as we pointed out in Level Measures last year, and it is very positive to see the government acknowledging the need for subregional centres to pool data capacity, albeit under mayoral auspices (of course). Likewise, the paper makes the sad but convincing argument that with the local government workforce in such a poor state, the reduction of the number of positions, particularly senior positions, through unitarisation will be helpful. It’s a shame it’s come to this but there you have it.
Where the issue of capacity is most poorly addressed by the white paper however is in the timescales indicated and the workload required. The white paper makes the assertion that local government is expected to get on with delivering on priorities whilst also dealing with reorganisation and the implementation of the strategic authority model. Even if the negotiations for all of this restructuring were likely to be smooth and harmonious, that would seem like a bit of a stretch. In reality, reorganisation will represent a major time and capacity sink in many areas, which will limit both local autonomy in placemaking and the ability of councils to deliver on the government’s priorities. The hope must be that in practice, completing the map is subordinated to matters such as delivering housing, improving the public realm and driving economic development.
Decarbonisation
The role of local authorities in driving decarbonisation and increasing climate resilience is a topic we have covered several times in recent years at Localis. While this government have generally returned achieving net zero to the rhetorical place it occupied in the Johnsonian years – with more actual policy heft behind it to boot – where this white paper is concerned, the role for the local state is expanded but remains frustratingly piecemeal in places. The most promising step by far is the role for the new strategic authorities in heat network zoning, where they will be able to identify and designate areas for zoning, presumably working within the frameworks of the new strategic plans and with the relevant local authorities. This is a positive measure on the local autonomy and government priorities front: if managed well, investment in new heat networks can provide high quality local employment, reduce energy bills and, vitally, improve national security from external shocks.
Less promising is the continued reservation of serious retrofitting powers for only the most advanced combined authorities. Giving councils the power to invest in their local retrofit capacity through the local government settlement would be a quicker way to getting money out into a sub-sector which would benefit greatly from upscaling. This would also help local authorities with placemaking and further contribute to that crucial goal of getting energy bills down as soon as possible. Without doing this, achieving meaningful improvements in the cost of living within this Parliament will be all the more challenging. This then, is a further area which the ongoing conversation around this white paper must focus on. There is an indication in the text that the government are open to giving strategic authorities more powers over climate change mitigation and adaptation, the revised NPPF of last week supports this view. It is up to the sector now to lobby hard for this to be made reality.
Strategic planning and the delivery of new homes
And speaking of the NPPF. The strategic planning element of the white paper has been well-covered and was pretty well understood to be coming in advance, so I won’t expend much time here on it, except to welcome one particular element. The imperative that areas without devolution should be banded together by government and required to produce a Spatial Development Strategy is something we pushed for in Design for Life, and it certainly makes sense in the context of ambitious housing targets and a recent history of serious under-delivery. It is crucial that this is done quickly and, if necessary, brutally – prevarication could end up causing further delays in local plan delivery as councils linger waiting for the new framework, as well as adding further uncertainty into a housebuilding economy which is far from optimum. Meaningful strategic planning has been kept at bay by political manoeuvres for too long and the pace at which this government is pushing for its adoption is necessary if its goals are to be achieved.
Audit and financial governance
As it is but a couple of weeks since our publication of Present Tense, it is also worth a brief mention of the new policy direction on local government audit. As we and many other organisations have stressed, a new and independent body for local audit is desperately needed, and its establishment along with the return of a national standards code is warmly welcomed. This is a good thing for local autonomy, as sound financial governance is crucial to sustainable delivery, and it will help central government in as much as it might work to increase the often rather dismal levels of Whitehall trust in local authority delivery, if nothing else. One aspect that we will be playing close attention to as the detail is fleshed out on the new body is its mandate for protecting whistleblowers. So much of poor financial governance begins with organisational cultures that punish challenges, and it is a matter of great importance that we update and reinforce our protections for those who feel the need to blow the whistle on malpractice.
Moving forward
I have identified here just a few of the points for discussion between the government, the sector and the wider local government family in the coming months. How the new unitary proposals can be carried forward without fragmentation in social care delivery, how district functions are most meaningfully integrated into unitaries, where the real prioritisation should lie amidst these multiple processes and how councils can carve out more decarbonisation powers – all of these are issues we will be seeking to engage with between now and the early part of 2025. There is much to discuss and we have to appreciate the boldness to take on an ‘always the bridesmaid, never the bride’ policy area which has been flirted with and abandoned at least twice in the past half decade.
Hopefully everyone has a great Christmas, however and wherever they are celebrating, in the meantime.
By Joe Fyans, Head of Research