The Evolution of Devolution: English Devolution

The Committee has significant concerns about current governance arrangements for England. The evidence we received suggests that even those working within the different parts of local government are not always clear on how the system works, where decisions are made, where accountability lies, and consequently how polices and services can be adapted to the needs of local areas and local people. If the people within government are unsure at times where powers and responsibility, and hence accountability, rest, this lack of clarity is magnified for individuals who have little knowledge or experience of the structures. This has the potential to leave individuals less likely to be able to access what they need from government, leaving them often unable to know who is responsible, and as a result are not properly able to hold their democratic representatives to account.

The evidence is clear both practically and democratically that the overly centralised arrangements of government in England are problematic. We were convinced by the evidence presented to us that the current balance of decisions is weighted too much to the centre and that this leads to suboptimal decision-making and policies, with corresponding challenges for delivery. It was suggested to us that the predominant reason for the over-centralisation of power is due to the culture in Whitehall that is unwilling to let go of powers. There is also concern about what was described as the ‘silo culture’ of Whitehall departments. While this may have benefits in Whitehall for developing national policies for the whole of England or the UK, it is clear that when these policies are implemented locally there is a risk that they will not connect and so local areas and people may have a range of different, disjointed experiences. Local government is not simply a delivery arm for Whitehall, and should not be treated thus. There is a clear role for local government to help bring together national polices and adapt them for implementation in local areas. In order for this to happen, there will need to be a culture shift in central government, to view local government as partners. It is important that this rebalancing of power take place urgently, for as it currently stands, central government wields too much power, and the UK Parliament is not set up to scrutinise this use of power either effectively or appropriately. Taken together, all of these factors may lead to poorer outcomes for individuals across England, which cannot be tolerated.

It is clear from our evidence that the current funding structures for local government and combined authorities reflects the instinct in Whitehall to maintain control of the levers of power and the purse strings. It is beyond the scope of this inquiry to make detailed recommendations on reforms to the funding structures for local government and combined authorities, however, it is clear to us that reforms are needed. In response to this report, the Government should make a clear commitment to put an end to the ubiquitous system of bidding for pots of money that appear to us to be wasteful of resources that could be deployed more effectively at all levels. In addition, the Government should provide the Committee with the information that the Secretary of State committed to provide to us in March of this year.

It is widely recognised that there is considerable geographical inequity within the governance arrangements of England. This is the area that the Government have clearly identified and prioritised in producing the Levelling Up White Paper. We note, however, the concerns raised in our evidence that until now the Government’s approach to “devolution” in England has focused on metropolitan areas, or areas in which there is a major city. Careful thought needs to be given to how the costal and rural areas of England can be given equal opportunities to develop and grow.

Successive Governments, far from putting in place careful reforms to nurture and develop decentralised and durable governance structures for England, have adopted a piecemeal and uncoordinated approach. This is simply not good enough.

The long-term viability of governance arrangements in England is a significant and pressing problem that has been neglected by successive governments for too long. It is clear that those in local government want a system that enables them to deliver for people and businesses in their area. However, the reality is that the governance arrangements for England are simply too complex, and too much is controlled from the centre. We heard that people in England have particularly low political efficacy, meaning they simply do not think that their voice will be heard or matters. This is a serious warning sign for the health of democracy in the United Kingdom.

There is an urgent and pressing need for significant reform of the governance arrangements of England, so that they not only work effectively, but can be seen to work effectively, in order to strengthen and restore the public trust in the functioning of our democracy at all levels.

As a consequence of the establishment and subsequent development of devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, there is now a legitimate degree of uncertainty about how England fits into the UK ‘s constitutional arrangements. This is in many ways an odd problem as in practice nothing has changed for England, as it was governed by the UK Government before devolution and it continues to be so. However, the introduction of devolution did fundamentally alter the UK’s constitutional arrangements, and while the effects of this for England have been less immediate, the more the institutions in devolved nations have developed and become an established part of the UK’s constitutional architecture, the more awkward and potentially problematic the position of England becomes.

The introduction of the English Votes for English Laws procedure was a recognition of the need to address this problematic situation. As such its removal could be seen as a step backwards. However, as our evidence indicates, it was an ineffectual measure that might not have been sufficient had a significant problem arisen. The Committee supports the Government’s removal of the English Votes for English Laws procedure, but laments the symbolism that underlies its abolition.

While it may not seem immediately pressing, the question of England’s place in the Union is a significant one that cannot be left unanswered indefinitely. While the Secretary of State’s approach of ignoring the issues underlying the so-called West Lothian question may be sustainable for the duration of the current Parliament, this is not a long-term solution, and failing to develop concrete proposals in this space displays a distinct lack of willingness to address what may soon become a significant problem. It is not inconceivable that a future General Election might render the question one that cannot be ignored and doing nothing in the meantime solely on the basis of the current parliamentary composition risks being viewed as constitutionally negligent.

The Committee also notes the difficulties inherent in UK Ministers also being Ministers for England when discharging their duties. It is entirely conceivable that situations may arise where the interests of England and of the UK will be divergent, and it is not clear to us in such a situation how a Minister would manage this conflict of interests. This situation is not acceptable and places an undue conflict and burden on Ministers in such a situation. The Government should set out its policy for how a Minister should manage a conflict of interests between their role as a UK Minister and a Minister for England. This should be included in the updated version of the Cabinet Manual and supplied in draft to us in response to this report.

More broadly, while it is clear that the interests of England and the UK are generally likely to be aligned, this may not always be the case, and it is important that proper consideration is given to the interest both of England as a whole and different regions and areas of England.

The question of England’s place in the Union cannot continue to be ignored. We recommend that the Government bring forward proposals for how the distinct interests of England can be represented effectively both within the legislative process and within Government and Civil Service structures.

The task of reforming the governance arrangements for England is not an easy one. There are strong historical, cultural, geographic and economic reasons to pursing a range of different approaches. We have identified three main reasons why meaningful and sustained reform has not occurred over the last 50 years.

If any reform is to take place it must address all of these issues, otherwise it is likely only to be another short term and partial measure. For a reform of the governance systems to successfully be implemented and invested in, a vision of where England will end up needs to be clearly articulated, on a cross-party basis and at all levels, to get sufficient political acceptance from the people necessary for its implementation to guarantee long-term delivery.

The Government should be commended for its willingness to openly identify many of the issues that we have also found with the current governance arrangements for England through the course of our inquiry. The publication of the White Paper Governing England 45 has undoubtedly helped push the more fundamental questions of the governance arrangements of England and England’s place in the Union up the political agenda.

There are no easy answers to the question as to what model(s) of reform to the governance arrangements for England would be successful or would satisfactorily address all the issues that we touched on during our inquiry, given the range of views. While there is unanimous agreement on this Committee that real, meaningful, and urgent changes need to be made, there is a range of different views about what these changes could or should be. The crucial point is that we recognise that the need for reform now outweighs the need for any particular approach to be adopted. Successive Government have tinkered on the edges of these questions and problems, and unfortunately we feel the Levelling Up White Paper is destined to continue that pattern. What is needed is a different approach that commits to meaningful, long- term reform that seriously addresses the questions and problems we have set out, but also removes the issue from the mainstream party-political arena in order to arrive at a sustainable solution acceptable to all. As such we are taking the unusual step of making the following recommendation not only to the Government, but also to the Opposition and other parties in House of Commons.

The Government should bring forward, and opposition parties should support, a Bill to establish a cross-party Commission on the governance of England. This Commission should be funded through and responsible to Parliament. The remit of the Commission should be to draw up proposals for reforms to the governance arrangements for England and for addressing the questions of England’s place in the Union. The Commission should also draft legislation to implement these proposals, to be presented to both Houses for approval. It is imperative that this Commission has the support of all major parties, regardless of future General Election results, as given the significance of these reforms is it likely that the Commission may undertake its work over the course of one or more Parliaments. The Government should take the steps to begin the establishment of such a Commission before the end of this Parliament.