Giving with one hand while taking away with the other, the government’s devolution white paper promises to empower local councils in England while simultaneously telling them what to do. Like their Conservative predecessors, ministers are mainly interested in local authorities because they recognise that they are key to economic growth. The kind of development that the government is desperate to see will not happen unless councils can work with businesses to address the need for investment in skills, transport and housing as well as jobs.
Housebuilding and green energy infrastructure are at the forefront of Labour’s ambitions for the English regions. So it makes sense that the choicest offering for localists in the new legislation is the promise of increased planning powers for beefed-up strategic authorities. Metro mayors will soon have the chance to shape local rail services and to copy Andy Burnham in Manchester by introducing contactless, integrated ticketing across the buses, trains and trams that link up localities.
Mr Burnham is probably the strongest advocate for Labour’s adoption of the devolution agenda (now stripped of its pointless “levelling up” gloss). The new council of the nations and regions is meant to signal the government’s seriousness. But despite Angela Rayner’s rhetoric about places “taking back control”, the reality is that her white paper is light on carrot and heavy on stick.
From a local government perspective, the most politically provocative measure is the promised abolition of district councils, which face being merged with counties to form unitary authorities. This is a technocratic and cost-cutting move presented as modernisation. If carried through, it would mean a greater degree of uniformity in place of the current patchwork of arrangements in different parts of England. It would also bring an end to the split in responsibilities between districts, which handle services including rubbish collection, and counties, with their statutory duties including social care and special educational needs.
Such streamlining could bring some benefits. Most people don’t grasp the different duties of the various government tiers (in rural areas this usually includes parish as well as district and county councils). But disrupting local democracy is not a thing to be done lightly, especially when public trust in politics is widely understood to be fragile. Organisational change directs huge amounts of energy inwards and there is no good evidence that larger councils are more effective. Ministers should be mindful of the towns and villages where a district council is the most visible elected body – and may also be different, politically, from the surrounding county. When larger councils are under colossal strain due to long-term underfunding of their social care obligations, there are benefits to keeping some services separate.
The proposals would be more palatable overall if they addressed such problems. A more radical settlement would include a greater degree of fiscal devolution, while a progressive tax policy ought to include the long-delayed reform of council tax. In the absence of a meaningful power shift away from Westminster, these reforms look like more of the same from an already overmighty central government. Even the new unitary authorities will not be placed in charge of decisions such as housebuilding numbers and energy infrastructure. Local councils risk being reshaped not to make their own choices but the better to carry out Whitehall’s orders.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
