The English Devolution White Paper: Our panel of experts responds

Posted on: 15 January 2025 in Blog

Published in December 2024, the long-awaited English Devolution White Paper outlines some of the biggest changes to local government and its relationship with Westminster in half a century.

Our initial reaction to the white paper described it as “cautiously radical”, noting its ambition to bring a ‘strategic’ tier of regional government to all parts of England, and the continuing reluctance to commit to genuine fiscal devolution.  

With the dust now settled and the white paper set to be debated by MPs over the coming months, we asked a panel of experts on local government, regional development, devolution and intergovernmental relations for their thoughts on the White Paper, and what comes next. 

Arianna Giovannini
When values collide: the English Devolution White Paper and its limits

The English Devolution White Paper (EDWP) generated mixed reactions. The    paper set the bar very high in terms of its devolution ambitions. But from the perspective of centre-local relations and local government, the EDWP seems to be underpinned by conflicting values. In short: can the government really commit to “devolution by default”, as it does in the EDWP, while not embracing in full the principle of subsidiarity?

The purpose of devolution – as opposed to decentralisation or deconcentration – is to bring politics, decision-making and public services closer to the people. It is therefore closely allied to the principle of subsidiarity, which posits that governance is most effective and democratic when decisions are made as close as possible to the communities affected. For some strategic policy areas, such as transport, a larger regional scale might be more appropriate. But for others, such as day-to-day service provision, the local (or even community) level could work best. Following this logic, delivering “devolution by default” should not pose any limit to the extent/level to which power can be passed down. Yet, in practice, the EDWP seems to suggest that Whitehall is still calling the shots.

On the one hand, the paper pledges to widen and deepen devolution and make it available through a flexible approach, incrementally, to all areas in England, while also enhancing the power of metro-mayors and committing to put the new devolution framework into statute – which is all welcome news On the other hand, however, promises to “re-set centre-local relations” and “end the parent-child relationship” that characterises it are not matched by plans for radical reform required to achieve this. Local government reorganisation proposals included in the EDWP are a case in point.

The introduction of large unitary authorities can be seen as a pragmatic attempt at finishing the job of simplifying local government structures developed incrementally since the Redcliffe-Maude report in 1969. Yet, imposing the creation of authorities that cover a population of about 500,000 inhabitants seems to be driven by a need to streamline local government structures that plays mostly in the interest of the centre, and that has not been discussed or negotiated with local leaders. In some areas, unitarisation might be appealing for local authorities and work well; in others, however, it will just not go down easily, and could generate negative effects.

Politically, the reform is bound to breed conflicts between counties, which see it as an opportunity to strengthen their role, and districts which are not keen to be abolished. It could also create ‘local rebellions’, as has already happened in Broxtowe Borough Council, where a number of Labour councillors have defected from the Labour party. From a policy and service delivery perspective, the EDWP claims that larger unitaries “can lead to better outcomes, save money which can be reinvested in public services, and improve accountability with fewer politicians”. Yet, research has repeatedly shown that there is little evidence that having fewer, larger councils makes local government more efficient and reduces costs. Furthermore, English local government units are already very large by international standards; unitarisation will further enhance this trend, essentially taking ‘the local’ out of local government. In a context marked by very low turnout rates in local elections, declining trust in politics and growing support for populism, pushing local government institutions further away from the local communities they are elected to serve could have profound democratic consequences. All this seems to go against the idea of “devolution by default” and circumvents the principle of subsidiarity.

After decades of partial attempts, the EDWP offered a real opportunity to finally ‘get subnational reform right’ and truly deliver “a completely new way of governing”, aligning a commitment to devolution with a radical reset of centre-local relations. Yet, it is hard to see how a strategy that builds on clashing values could rise to this crucial challenge.

Arianna Giovannini is Professor of Political Sociology in the Department of Economics, Society and Politics at the University of Urbino (Italy), and a Visiting Fellow at the Heseltine Institute.

Hamida Ali
For a real shift in power, devolution needs local authorities - and not just the ‘strategic’ tier

Ultimately, devolution is not an end in itself. It is only meaningful and effective if it improves outcomes for all our communities – from access to better work and improved health to more affordable, higher quality homes and stronger transport connectivity.

Judged on those terms, the English Devolution White Paper offers real promise, and we were pleased to see it reflect several of the proposals we set out with Metro Dynamics in Impactful Devolution 01, a new framework for inclusive local growth and national renewal.

The white paper articulates a clear vision for a fundamental shift in the nature of the relationship between central, regional and local government - from one that has veered between micromanaged paternalism and backroom deal-making to one that establishes a meaningful partnership on equal terms.

Similarly, the Government’s proposals for local government reorganisation offer the prospect of greater coherence of subnational government structures, clear and distinctive roles between tiers, and greater collaboration as a consequence - echoing principles from our work on mission-driven government.

As the Government now moves from the high-level approach of the white Paper to the practical detail of an eventual bill, there are four areas where it will need to pay particular attention to the role of local government.

By definition, strategic authorities can’t deliver alone

While the White Paper is squarely focused on ensuring that every part of England is eventually covered by a strategic authority, the clue is in the title. ‘Strategic’ authorities cannot also be vehicles for delivery and the White Paper acknowledges as much. The real promise of impactful devolution lies in a genuinely symbiotic partnership between strategic and local tiers which recognises and values the distinct role played by local authorities, and how they can work hand in hand with their strategic authority. Local authorities must play a meaningful role in the development of the statutory Local Growth Plans, drawing on both their immediate proximity to their communities and their existing work on prevention. The White Paper’s commitment to boosting the capacity of strategic authorities by seconding in civil servants from Whitehall is welcome, but this should not just be a one-way street. Secondments in the other direction would help build more meaningful partnerships between central, regional and local government. 

Reorganisation will result in some financial savings, but it won’t resolve local government’s funding crisis

The new government has already made some distinctly different choices to its predecessors as very early steps to address the inadequacy of local government funding arrangements. The White Paper holds out the prospect of additional steps but without providing any further detail (and with no mention at all of fiscal devolution). Further steps will certainly be necessary given it is unlikely that any savings leveraged by local government reorganisation will plug the persistent and compound deficits in council budgets and restore their capacity to deliver.

Reorganisation will also take time, generate costs upfront and reduce organisational capacity. While this is acknowledged in the White Paper, the impact on the bandwidth within councils affected by reorganisation cannot be underestimated. Thought should be given to how councils affected by reorganisation can maintain vital services, inform the development of Local Growth Plans, and the new strategic tier in their areas - all while going through the significant process of reorganisation. 

Maintaining and deepening connections with communities will be vital for new local authorities with larger populations

The White Paper recognises the importance of community engagement, empowerment and accountability as we move to a new single tier of local authorities. Again, though, there is currently a lack of detail as to how this would happen in practice.  While the Government is clear - and correct - that the distinct role of local authorities is as a convenor and leader of their places, a meaningful community-focused outlook will be harder to sustain for those newly-established local authorities that cover much larger populations. Decision-making processes in these new larger unitary authorities will need to find ways to remain place-focused and establish genuine connection with all the communities they serve.

There’s no doubting the scale of the Government’s ambition on devolution and its direction of travel is the right one - but will only be realised with all of central, regional and local government working in concert and pulling in the same direction.

Hamida Ali is Head of Policy and Programmes at The Future Governance Forum. She was previously the Leader of Croydon Council and worked for the Greater London Authority.

Kirsty McLean
What the English Devolution White Paper means in practical terms for Liverpool City Region

The publication of the English Devolution White Paper represents the most significant development in the devolution agenda for the Liverpool City Region (LCR) in a decade, since its first devolution agreement signed with government in 2015.

The White Paper confirms LCR as one of only six Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities, thus firmly placing LCR in the “top tier” of Mayoral Combined Authorities and demonstrating its maturity, record of delivery and strong governance.

This matters because only these six will get the full range of powers set out in the new Devolution Framework relating to housing, transport, skills and employment support, economic development, environment and climate change, health and public safety.

Of real game-changing importance to the city region, however, is that as one of the six, it will receive an integrated funding settlement from April 2026; a funding settlement that will, initially, bring together funding streams relating to housing, local growth, transport, skills, and business support. It means that the Liverpool City region Combined Authority (LCRCA) will have simplified funding arrangements, moving away from individual grants from different Government departments, schemes or initiatives – each with varying terms and conditions.  This Settlement will give the LCRCA more freedoms and flexibilities across these themes allowing it to accelerate delivery, support economic growth, and meet other local objectives. It is an important step on the journey to fiscal devolution – fully devolved budgets - which is necessary if devolution in England is to truly work.

The White Paper’s significance lies not just in the confirmation of an integrated settlement and new powers for the city region, but also how government is “hardwiring devolution into government”. Mayors and Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) will be expected to deliver more locally but will get more say in national agencies’ operations and objectives. The duty to produce a Local Growth Plan to support national economic growth missions is the key example.

The White Paper establishes the mechanisms whereby Mayors and the MCAs will shape national policy. The Council of Nations and Regions brings together the English MCAs and the devolved home nations  into a forum chaired by the Prime Minister to collaborate across national missions. The Mayoral Council, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, brings together England’s Mayors and will be the key forum for engagement between central government and Mayors on Local Growth Plans, pushing the frontier on devolution, feeding back on how best to deliver on the ground, and identifying opportunities to better coordinate national and local policy. Crucially, the Council will be the vehicle for Established MCAs, including LCRCA, to ask for more powers than those set out in the White Paper.

The government has stated that the White Paper represents “the floor, not the ceiling” of its devolution aspirations. This is strongly welcomed as this is the position of the LCRCA, which has been, and continues to be, highly ambitious for more devolved powers and levers. The White Paper represents marked progress on the devolution journey for Liverpool City Region. Confirmation of the city region’s “top tier” status and the potential financial flexibilities and powers this will bring is highly important for the city region. The Mayor being at the table with the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will shape discourse and delivery across the government’s national missions, a significant and highly welcome development, which reflects the strong delivery record, evidence base and future ambition of the LCRCA.

Kirsty McLean is Executive Director Public Sector Innovation at Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

Paul Anderson
Intergovernmental Relations: Promising Steps Forward, but Cultural Change is Crucial

Since coming to power in July 2024, the Labour Government has put significant emphasis on fostering (more) meaningful relations between the UK Government and England’s regional mayors. Within days of taking the reins of power, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister met with mayors in Downing Street, signalling the Government’s commitment to a sustained dialogue between Whitehall and subnational leaders.

To facilitate this interaction, two new intergovernmental bodies were established: the Council of the Nations and Regions and the Mayoral Council. The former, chaired by the Prime Minister, brings together UK Government Ministers, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, the First and Deputy Ministers of Northern Ireland and England’s regional mayors with the objective “to facilitate partnership working” between the UK Government and subnational leaders. The latter, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and attended by England’s regional mayors, ensures “mayors have a proper seat at the table [to] shape the future of English devolution”.

The recently published English Devolution White Paper reaffirmed the continuation of these bodies and shed some light on their primary objectives. With a promise to “put mayors front and centre”, the Government sees mayors as key partners in delivering the Government’s national missions. They will develop Local Growth Plans, contribute to national conversations, and play an integral role in shaping the future development of English devolution. There are hints of involving mayors more in national policy-making processes, but a firm commitment to this is disappointingly muted. Enhancing the voice and visibility of local and regional insights in the Whitehall machine would do much to add value to national policy development.

The Government’s positive rhetoric emphasises collaboration and partnership, but turning words into action remains the real challenge. While the creation of intergovernmental bodies is a positive step, structures alone are insufficient. Success will require a shift from the dominant ‘Whitehall and Westminster know best’ mindset to a political culture predisposed to ‘think devolved’, underpinned by a commitment to cooperation, equality and mutual respect.

Hitherto, the onus has been put on the civil service to stymie its ingrained power-hoarding impulse. Labour, however, must also guard against its entrenched centralist instincts. Devolution allows for diverse approaches to shared problems and offers valuable opportunities for policy innovation. Divergence from national policy or priorities by regional mayors may pose political dilemmas for the Government, but embracing this diversity, even when it creates tensions, is essential to fostering a vibrant and effective governance model. Such an approach would unlock the full potential of devolution to tackle regional challenges innovatively.

The White Paper has initiated a vital conversation about the future governance of England. Strengthening intergovernmental relations and empowering regional mayors marks a promising step forward. Constructive intergovernmental relations are not just a political or constitutional necessity – they are the cornerstone of advancing English devolution and ensuring its long-term success. 

Dr Paul Anderson is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Liverpool John Moores University and a Visiting Fellow at the Heseltine Institute. His research interests lie in the field of comparative territorial politics. He has published widely on devolution and intergovernmental relations.