˽·¿¾ãÀÖ²¿

One of the first major policy announcements by Sir Keir Starmer's new Labour government, announced in the King's Speech, is the English Devolution Bill. IIt aims to give local leaders greater powers over local growth by legislating a standardised devolution framework, potentially granting them more control over strategic planning, local transport networks, and skills and employment support.

Colin Copus, Emeritus Professor of Local Politics of ˽·¿¾ãÀÖ²¿ Leicester's (˽·¿¾ãÀÖ²¿) Local Governance Research Centre, is one of the foremost academics in the field of local government. Here, he gives his view on what we know of the bill so far.

Local government in England is never short of promises of a ‘Devolution Revolution’ but experience shows these are never revolutionary and rarely devolutionary. So, when the Deputy Prime Minister announced another devolution revolution in a letter to local authority leaders, little breath should be held. Especially, as it appears the letter went only to county and unitary council leaders not district councils (an oversight surely).

The English Devolution Bill in the King’s Speech contained little to assuage fears that another disappointment is on the cards. While a shift of ‘powers’ from Whitehall is promised these will be to combined authorities and not local government. The government has stated it will make it simpler to create ‘Combined and Combined County Authorities, to ensure that every part of England can rapidly benefit from devolution’.

First, and this is not a semantic point: England is not being offered devolution, rather decentralisation of tasks, functions, responsibilities and some budgets. Devolution – the passing of primary legislative powers to another body – such as in Scotland and Wales – is not on offer to England. In the absence of an English Parliament, England will remain at the back of the pack in the devolution stakes.

Second, the combined authority focus is worrying because ‘every part of England can benefit from devolution’ without altering the existing two-tier structure (three where there are parishes) such as in Leicestershire (the city is a unitary council). Experience overseas shows that there is absolutely no need to link strong powerful local government and local leaders with any form of structural change. But, the new government has picked up the reins offered by civil servants at the ministry to continue with devolution linked to territorial upheaval.

Should Leicester / Leicestershire go down the combined authority route then enhanced powers over strategic planning, local transport networks, skills, employment support, job creation and other areas, all of which it is vital are localised, could offer the county much to be gained. Combined authorities being the only real devolution game in town

District councils can only be non-voting non-constituent members of combined authorities (unless decided otherwise) so in setting the structure of  devolution the centre is determined to make its job easier by only talking to upper tier councils. It is difficult to see how the aim of empowering communities can be met if those councils closest to real communities – districts and boroughs – are effectively excluded from the process. A familiar game is being played in the new devolution revolution of divide and rule among local government with the ever present prospect (including in Leicestershire) of council mergers and abolitions.

Let’s be clear, devolution for England is not about the centre’s conversion to powerful local government – rather it is about how local government can contribute to the centre’s priority of economic growth and development;  it is about councils delivering for the centre as an agent, rather than being powerful governing institutions in their own right. Top-down centralised devolution, rather than bottom up devolved devolution is on offer.

Yet, the Secretary of State announced at the Local Government Association’s Councillor Forum on 18^th July that: ‘It’s not just about mayors, councils will have a seat at our table’. It remains to be seen how big that table is, who is invited and what fare is spread upon it. Something suggests that fare won’t be as tasty as that offered to Combined Authorities.

Still it’s early days for this government and cynicism may be unfair – it is however, a cynicism born of experience.