Devolution is an idea whose time has come. But does anyone understand quite what that idea is?
Devolution has been a key feature of the government’s agenda to promote growth and provide some coherence to the development of strategy and infrastructure on a regional footprint. But as we press on towards elected mayors for regional combined authorities in May 2017 doubts are growing about how effective they will be, whether there is a clear strategy underpinning the devolution deals and whether they will work outside of the core cities.
These doubts have been reiterated in the recently published National Audit Office (NAO) report on the deals done so far. In producing the report the NAO analysed the deals which had been agreed over the last 18 months in Greater Manchester, Cornwall, Sheffield, the North East, the Tees Valley, Liverpool and the West Midlands. The deals announced in the budget 2016 for East Anglia, Greater Lincolnshire and the West of England were not looked at in detail.
The NAO report highlights the piecemeal, some might say chaotic approach of the government to the devolution process so far. Each deal is negotiated separately, though some have suggested that the government’s negotiation on a number of issues, notably elected mayors is very much take it or leave it. There are common themes across the deals but some significant differences which tend to accentuate the perception that devolution is happening at two or even three or four speeds.
Whilst some authorities are concerned that they will be left behind, creating tensions amongst partners or potential partners others believe that it is a road to nowhere and the best approach is to steer well clear.
There remain fundamental concerns about whether an approach which seems designed to suit cities can ever translate to rural areas. The difficulties with the East Anglia and Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire deals seem to support these concerns. The policy also seems to be very dependant on the men at the helm of the DCLG and the Treasury, particularly George Osbourne. Does this mean that the foundations of devolution may be built on politically shifting sands?
At the recent local council elections devolution barely surfaced as an election issue. This is hardly surprising because public awareness of what devolution actually means for them is probably somewhere near zero and the secrecy surrounding the negotiation of the deals has not helped this nor has the lack of clear policy objectives which devolution deals are intended to deliver.
There are no published criteria against which devolution deals are being judged and the decisions have been rushed through the participating councils with minimal discussion, let alone consultation.
The government has announced £246.5m a year of additional funding alongside the devolution deals. There will also be a sharing of existing funding which is currently within the control of central government. However, the NAO report makes it clear that the full financial implications of devolution remain uncertain.
Many authorities have made the calculation that the devolution being offered is a once in a generation opportunity. They take the view, probably correctly, that the combination of factors which have pushed this government into promoting devolution deals is unlikely to recur if this chance is spurned. However, there are many leading figures in local government who are willing to take that chance, many of them leading conservatives.
The local government map is being rewritten and there is a shift in power from the centre to the regions. Whether it will provide the path to a better post austerity system of local government or be the road to nowhere remains to be seen. Whichever it is there are plenty more turns in the road before we find out.
Simon Goacher is a partner at national law firm Weightmans
