Parliament’s Communities and Local Government Committee delivered its verdict this week on both the Government’s progress with devolution and its prospects for the next five years.
The timing coincides with the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act entering into law, and it is now up to Greg Clark to make the necessary orders to give statutory effect to the Devolution deals agreed so far. If used to the full, the Act could change the whole face of the public sector in England. This is not likely to happen any time soon, however. Devolution will be done through deals - there is no universal blueprint.
Although the Committee looks to a utopian future where all regions have their devolution deals in place, giving more or less universal coverage, it accepts that the bottom up approach is the better way of delivery. In effect, it believes that if applied by prescription, it would inevitably have to be implemented in a way that allows the slowest movers to keep pace.
This seems a little patronising. Notwithstanding the trailblazing of Greater Manchester and others, local government as a whole has proved very effective at adjusting to change. The flipside of bottom up is to create an even more incoherent patchwork of local government provisions across the country.
Yet it points out that the Government has no clear policy or objective for Devolution. The Act is enormous in scope: public functions could be moved around dramatically; governance of localities could be altered; local government areas could be merged and new Sub-national Transport Authorities created. Yet there is no matching objective.
The Committee is also right to be critical of the lack of engagement by the Government with the public, citing the lack of knowledge and understanding at large and the absence of consultation. But despite this lack of engagement at this stage, a key feature of the Government’s vision for Devolution is the insistence upon an elected mayor, which puts governance firmly into the hands of voters. Few agree with the Government’s view that an Elected Mayor improves governance, but if it is the price to be paid for a deal, then so be it. However, it’s doubtful how much the issues will engage the voter.
Whilst Greater Manchester may have some eye-catching features such as the health deal and transfer of policing and fire services, for the most part the deals are quite technical affairs. If only 15% of the electorate can be bothered to turn out for Police and Crime Commissioner elections, how many will bother to vote in a Mayor with powers over economic development, skills and business support?
Even within the context of local government, these are not the issues which affect the public on a daily basis. Councils already carry out those frontline services which affect people’s lives, like refuse collection, schools and adult social care. Whilst the Act provides the framework for Councils to “devolve up” any such services to the new authority, that is not likely to happen to frontline services anytime soon.
The Committee recommends the government to be bolder in two key areas. Firstly, whilst Greater Manchester has dipped its toe into the waters of health integration, there is uncertainty about what this really means for the future and for the NHS, and no clarity about whether it should be rolled out more widely. Secondly, whilst local government has a promise that it will get to retain 100% of business rates, true fiscal devolution does not come with this Act and seems a long way off still. The Committee rightly points out that true devolution only comes with fiscal devolution.
For the foreseeable future, therefore, it remains a case of Deal or No Deal.
Michael Mousdale is Head of Local Government at DWF Law.
