Those of us who were campaigning for devolution in England 10 or more years ago (and to be fair it was pretty niche at the time) would never have imagined a government white paper on English devolution being published. No one in government circles seemed remotely interested and there was little public ‘noise’ around the issue at the time. So, the publication of the government’s English devolution white paper is very welcome.
Foundations for growth
‘Power and Partnership: Foundations for Growth’ sets out, in 118 pages of detail, how the government intends to deliver on its promised ‘devolution revolution’ over the course of this parliament.
The comments of the deputy prime minister, in the foreword to the white paper, are especially pertinent. In it, she says:
“England is one of the most centralised developed countries. Too many decisions affecting too many people are made by too few. The controlling hand of central government is stifling initiative and development throughout the country.”
All of this will resonate with devolution campaigners and will be welcomed. Reading through the white paper, it is clear the intention is to cement English devolution into the constitution (the phrase used in the paper is that devolution will be “embedded as default into our country’s constitution”). Devolution is thus here to stay; there is no going back.
Progress and pitfalls to the devolution white paper
There is a lot of good stuff in the white paper to back up the foreword. For example, there’s mention of the powers of mayors deepening, to take on infrastructure projects, rail services and housing policy. Local government, the paper says, will take back control so there will be no need to refer new cycle lanes and cattle grids to the secretary of state for transport.
Despite this positive content, however, there is much that is wrong with the white paper, in my opinion. Not least among this, is the need to completely abolish smaller district councils and with that the apparent cancellation of local elections next spring. Increasing power in the hands of a single politician with no real accountability, except for an election with an exceptionally low turnout every four years, is not something any of us should be comfortable with.
Also, there is still no fiscal devolution. The most mayors can expect is a continuation of the bloc grant settlement, and a lot of handholding and box ticking exercises if financing is required for any significant projects.
There is a question too of how regional and local identity plays into these proposals – they don’t at all. So, as was expected, there is no room for a One Yorkshire deal.
The devolution campaign goes on
Although, in many ways, campaigners should be delighted that English devolution is firmly part of the nation’s future governance fabric, we do have very significant concerns. And so, the campaign goes on.
The campaign, though, is no longer about the merits of devolution (that’s a given surely on the back of the publication of the white paper?) but rather what’s good about the government’s proposal and what needs to happen to improve it.
As a devolution campaigner, I would concentrate on the lack of accountability (why not a London model everywhere?); fiscal devolution (why no room for very local taxes such as tourist tax for example?); and the importance of a ‘bottom-up’ approach in terms of identity. The imposition of combined authorities from the centre cuts across the very essence of devolution. Far better that communities carve out what is the best configuration for them.
Devolution campaigners should be right behind the Cornish, for example, in their bid for their own assembly. They should support their resistance to inclusion with a proposed Devon-wide combined authority and mayor. And, of course, they should continue to make the case for a One Yorkshire deal, which could really unleash our potential here.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
