The devolution of power to English cities was a hot topic of debate among local authority representatives at MIPIM. The move towards greater devolution was even described as “unstoppable” by one council leader.
It is true that the increased power given to Scotland as a way of preventing a “no” vote in the independence referendum means that the issue of devolution in England will not go away. The creation of an English parliament or the “English votes for English laws” solution might take the heat away for a short time, but they are solutions that will cost more and ultimately keep decision making and accountability distant from the electorate. I am not sure they will whet the appetite of ordinary people when they are properly scrutinised.
England has a massively over-centralised system of governance. A recent article by Andrew Sentance in The Telegraph explained how centralisation has increased since the 1980s as a way of dealing with problem councils and that we no longer have the tradition that exists in countries such as Germany of giving tax-raising powers to lower tiers of government.
However, centralisation ignores the fact that people trust local authorities more than central government. A poll by the Local Government Association found that, when asked: “Who do you trust most to make decisions about how services are provided in your local area?” 72% of people said local councillors, 11% MPs and 7% government ministers.
My experience as a former leader of Cambridgeshire county council is that centralisation stifles progress and eats cash. Government departments spend money in silos and, as a result, duplicate spend on areas such as drug and alcohol abuse, community projects and, especially, adult social care. It is also true that local organisations bidding for funding have a confusing myriad of government bureaucracy to identify and work through to get funding for great causes – a process that costs time and money.
The case for devolution is about far more than just pointing at Scotland and saying: “We want devolution because they’ve got it.” The argument should be about how devolution is essential because it would enable money to be spent by organisations that are more trusted, provide better, cheaper services and tailor them to local priorities.
However, the debate must not only be about devolution for cities. It must be about devolution to English local government. There is an argument that shire counties are the economic powerhouse of the country – a County Council Network interim findings document published in November 2014 highlights that their member areas deliver around five times as many new business registrations as cities.
One proviso for devolution is that local government must accept that it can only happen alongside local government reform. Devolved government has to be simpler; the current structures are too complex, there are too many councillors and too many of them are not of a good enough standard (although the best are excellent). Those who have watched planning committees will know that all too often members say no because they believe it is the will of the electorate. This is often not the case.
The work I am involved in now includes identifying what communities want and need and bringing out the voice of support for developments that is often hidden or stifled by loud, aggressive opposition. When councillors come to realise that they are listening to a loud minority and that sitting underneath is a silent majority, they start looking at the planning issues and using the sort of conscientious judgment that they should have been using in the first instance.
My personal view about how to make devolution happen may sound like a “kick it into the long grass” approach. But I would prefer a new government to make a commitment to devolution, to get legislation in place that guarantees it by a set deadline and then sets up a royal commission to look at the options and come up with a firm recommendation. There is no reason that this can’t all be done within the lifespan of one parliament.
Martin Curtis is associate director, Curtin & Co
