The English devolution white paper, published on 16 December 2024, outlines sweeping changes to local government structures across England. With little or no consultation at local level, it raises critical questions about the future of local democracy. Will these proposals bring governance closer to communities, or will they centralise power under the guise of devolution?
Strategic authorities: universal or overreaching?
Universal coverage of strategic authorities is promoted, with an emphasis throughout on ‘local leaders’, that is, primarily existing council leaders and new mayors.
The main feature of the changes proposed is to pursue unitary councils everywhere, which in practice means that councils with populations of less than half a million will be merged. How people may react to their local council no longer being local, and how this might influence their view of politics, does not seem to have been considered.
Existing unitary authorities have often been formed in urban areas – such as Brighton and Hove and Medway – where the identity of such councils is strong. Some councils follow historic or identifiable boundaries – for example, Cornwall (population 572,000) or Rutland (population 42,000). The former is likely to retain its boundaries; the latter may be pressurised into merging due to population size. The joint authority for the whole of the Thames Valley being promoted by the Labour Party in Oxford points to imposed regionalism rather than enhanced local democracy. How will the government handle strong local dissent?
Voluntary mergers or imposed change?
The white paper stresses the capacity of local government to engage voluntarily in the process of creating local authorities, but where the public can actually participate in the process, and whether their views will count in practice, remains unclear at present. It is questionable to what extent moving the locus of a local government away from existing communities, and especially into large contiguous authority areas, might increase the legitimacy of local government.
Omissions in the white paper
Electoral reform: The paper does not propose electoral reform that would ensure fair and accurate representation of the electorate in existing or new local government structures. If it’s good enough for London, Wales and Scotland for their elected assemblies, why not within England?
The mayors of proposed or existing English combined authorities have no elected assemblies other than in London, and this option is not mentioned. And yet it does suggest that the government’s proposed changes are about improving trust, giving control back to the public, and devolving the right powers to the right level. This appears paradoxical.
Councillors: Councillors barely feature. Unitary authorities will mean far fewer of them yet there are issues that need to be addressed. These include better training for elected councillors, better pay so that more councillors can work full-time. Greater restrictions on business interest, including share ownership, while desirable, could prevent some councillors from making a wide range of council decisions.
Uniformity or diversity? There is no argument put forward in support of greater uniformity of local government structures with larger populations and areas. Local identity, preferences and diverse geographies are sidelined in favour of centralising decision making – often, it seems, in a portfolio of powers vested in a mayor.
England is already far too centralised. Why should Stroud be pushed into a ‘shotgun wedding’ with the very different Forest of Dean? Why would people in Hertfordshire want a single unitary council covering their large and varied area? Is Oxfordshire really too small to hold a wide range of local government powers? Should the much larger Kent and Medway, which is big enough for 18 parliamentary constituencies, really become just four unitaries?
Hard cash: Resources for local government in general are not considered. The impression is given that there are grants or funds for specific purposes and that the limited finance for local authorities of many previous governments will continue. In practice, this means that the government will bestow funding for approved projects rather than it being decided locally how to use funds raised mainly at local level.
Councils should be able to set their own council tax levels, subject to a required minimum annual increase – taking into account inflation in all relevant sectors. Apart from making the existing system more progressive through a series of additional tax tiers, eventually Land Value Taxation (LVT) should replace Council Tax and business rates. This would bring land wealth into the local government tax system, based upon the use of the land.
Potentially, the ‘green deserts’ of lawns and vast buildings of stately homes would be taxed more heavily, while ecologically important land might not be taxed at all. Also of significant value to local government is the potential revenue from electronic road pricing (ERP), which charges drivers for road use. This could fund local transport projects, such as active travel, pavement and road repairs, buses, and perhaps even such essentials as pedestrian and cycle bridges and tunnels.
An outline of how this might be implemented in Oxford is available. A working model of an ERP system has been in operation in Singapore since 1998, and has extensive online evidence of its results.
Remote working: a necessity for centralisation? Greater centralisation of local government structures means that, in many places, remote working and flexitime will be needed for elected members and many council employees. For reasons of social justice and to reduce the burden of commuting on households and individuals, these rights should be enshrined in law for many working people.
Consultations or con jobs? It is highly desirable to reconsider the limitations of consultations at all levels. Having participated in all too many of these, I note the following common deficiencies:
- loaded questions;
- inadequate space for comments on online forms, e.g., to explain why an assumption is rejected or to point out omissions; and
- time limits for consultations too short.
Refunding local government should include a general reassessment of the way public money is distributed in private sector subsidies at all levels of government. Government or regional agencies also need more resources and powers.
Individual leadership or local democracy? The idea of appointing mayors who preside over combined authorities with large populations and/or geographical areas should be strongly questioned. The burden of having adequate knowledge is and would be considerable, and the need for such posts situated far from the localities they serve should be challenged in principle.
Let’s not go for growth: Sustainable regeneration makes far more sense as a goal than ‘growth.’ Local councils should be empowered to:
- make use of vacant buildings for council and keyworker housing;
- develop pedestrianised areas to increase footfall and thereby the sustainability and diversity of businesses and facilities located there;
- explore low-density and under-occupied industrial estates and science parks for their housing potential; and
- provide apartments above public and private car parks to meet the demand for council and keyworker housing.
Strengthening local councils: Parish and town councils are not considered. Many of these do have a problem in recruiting enough potential candidates to be able to hold competitive elections in their area of responsibility.
The government should permit local councils to explore how mergers might be implemented to create a more effective and citizen-centred tier of administration. All urban communities should be covered by parish/town/community councils to strengthen local democracies where such councils do not yet exist.
Abolishing mayors and police and crime commissioners: Established mayoral and police and crime commissioner posts should be scrutinised periodically by the electorate. If not wanted, they can be removed.
Conclusion
The government has started from the wrong place: a desire for more control over local government in an already highly centralised England.
The right starting point is to give local government more resources to fulfil their responsibilities, so that they can be more responsive to the citizens they serve. This should be done primarily through LVT and ERP. The former would replace council tax and business rates; the latter would compensate for declining fuel duties and help reduce the number of private car journeys into settlements, and much more.
In terms of the economic role of local councils, sustainable regeneration of empty buildings for council and keyworker housing would protect the public from very high private rents and high accommodation costs. Thus, households might have more discretionary income to spend in the local economy.
Grand, expensive schemes to rebuild entire shopping centres or seafronts are exactly the sort of schemes that, like new towns, should very rarely escape from the digital drawing boards on which they were conceived.
The white paper appears to prioritise central control over genuine local control and offers little in the way of resources or reforms to strengthen local governance.
While the government’s proposals aim to streamline structures and promote efficiency, they risk alienating local communities and undermining local identity. True devolution requires meaningful investment, fair representation, and policies that reflect the different needs of England’s regions. Without these, the promise of devolution could be little more than a centralisation agenda in disguise.
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
