The UK government has outlined its plans for English devolution and local government reform in a landmark white paper. These are some of the most consequential reforms of recent times, signalling a long-term settlement on how England is governed. English devolution bridges two of the government’s biggest challenges: how to make people feel better off and how to rebuild trust in politics.
Unlike the other parts of the UK, where devolution entails a national assembly that passes laws and budgets, devolution in England is about groups of local authorities working together. In recent years, groupings of local authorities have struck deals with central government to make “combined authorities”, which get extra money and powers on the proviso that a mayor is elected to take responsibility.
For the past decade, this process has developed ad hoc. It works well in some places, not so well in others, and not at all in many areas. At the heart of this latest announcement is an attempt to make it work consistently, everywhere.
The idea is to simplify England’s patchwork of local government into two consistent tiers. Strategic authorities – like those led by Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester and Sadiq Kahn in London – will be responsible for issues like transport, skills, strategic planning and economic development. This could mean big changes for some areas, especially on transport, where London-style ticketing will make local travel much simpler.
Local authorities will all become “unitaries”, which means that local services like bins, leisure centres and social care will all be provided by a single council in each area. The hope is that this will be more efficient and simpler for local people, who will no longer have to deal with both a county council and a district council.
One challenge is that the creation of bigger unitary authorities is actually likely to move power further away from people. This might not be a problem if mayors engage the public more directly in local politics or if there is a clear plan to revitalise England’s declining local democracy. People need more opportunities to contribute to local politics. This is something that did not get enough attention in the government’s devolution plans.
What is much more promising about the government’s plans is their potential contribution to health and prosperity. There is a longstanding debate about whether decentralisation of this kind leads to economic benefits. While this is difficult to measure conclusively, there clearly are benefits from stable, well-funded, and well-managed local governments with the ability to make decisions at scale. The plan is to extend these powers to empower local decision making on planning, transport, employment and skills.
A good example is public health. If health policy was more preventative, the country could save billions of pounds on treatment each year and give people better quality lives. The key to making health policy more preventative is to join up different local services and interventions. Research on making cities healthier shows that if local officials embed health policy in decisions about transport and planning, they could reduce the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases like cancer and diabetes. Just imagine plans for a new housing development with dense, poorly insulated homes next to a main road – this might be the best option financially – but if the long-term costs to the NHS are factored in, it would actually make more financial sense to situate the houses away from a main road, integrate public transport, improve insulation and create accessible green space.
Of course, people don’t just need healthier homes, they need to be able to afford them. Mayors will have a major role to play here, taking on more planning powers so that housing developments don’t get blocked by parochial concerns. The government hope this will help meet its 1.5 million housing target.
So, there are big positives from the government’s English devolution plans in terms of both prosperity and health. But there are two missing elements. The first is the need to engage local people more directly in local decisions. This will require action from central and local government to champion public involvement and invest in new initiatives.
The second is how to prevent towns and rural areas being left behind as the big cities accelerate ahead. Regional inequality is driving negative political forces in the UK and, with populism on the rise, a more concerted effort is needed. While overall the government’s plans are likely to have positive long-term benefits for health and prosperity, people need to feel like their lives are improving and that they have a part to play in the political process.
This research comes from the TRUUD project, a research programme based at the University of Bristol, that aims to reduce non-communicable disease (such as cancers, diabetes, obesity, mental ill-health and respiratory illness) and health inequalities linked to the quality of urban planning and development for use in discussions with government and the developer industry. The TRUUD research project (https://truud.ac.uk/) is funded by the the UK Prevention Research Partnership (https://ukprp.org/).
