Decentralisation and devolution must be dealt with more coherently

The decisions on devolution and decentralisation announced before the election, and the proposals included in the main party manifestos, amount to a further significant step from the familiar centralised state to a much looser quasi-federal set up. This has profound implications for how the UK is governed.

The proposals have so far been produced, and debated, in a largely piecemeal way. While there is some relationship in the proposals for Scottish and Welsh devolution, there is almost no connection – either in decision making or in presentation in the manifestos – with the plans for decentralisation of budgets to English city regions. It is as if the devolved nations and England were being considered entirely separately. Not only is there no consistency of approach, but there is little discussion of the inter-connections for the government of the UK.

All three of the main party manifestos have broadly similar pledges on Scotland and Wales, promising to take forward the draft Scotland bill which emerged from the Smith Commission and the draft Wales bill which was set out in the St Davids Day agreement (though Labour and the Liberal Democrats favour going further). And they all take a similar cautious approach to devolution in Northern Ireland.

On England, the Conservatives propose building on existing measures to decentralise substantial powers to Manchester to create a ‘Northern Powerhouse’ via growth and city deals, Labour talks of devolution of power to English city and county regions, essentially a transfer of funding and powers relating to economic development, skills, housing and transport. The Liberal Democrats talk of a further strengthening of local government through what is described as devolution on demand. All are coy and cautious about transferring, or creating new, tax raising powers within England.

This asymmetrical pattern is unlike the clarity of fully federal systems such as the US and Germany but it is not unique. Spain also has an uneven pattern of devolution, while, in Canada, there are a number of special arrangements relating to Quebec. But the result here is differences in the treatment of the component nations of the UK; and this has produced support for some variant, strong or weak, of English votes for English laws, as well as proposals (most explicit from Labour) for replacing the House of Lords with an elected Senate of the Nations and Regions. The Liberal Democrats highlight their longstanding support for Home Rule to each of the nations with a federal UK, though England would not have a separate legislature as in the other nations.

But there are also largely undiscussed differences in Whitehall’s relations with the various parts of England. The decentralisation of powers to English local government looks like being uneven, meaning that some authorities, or groups of authorities, as in the Manchester city region, will gain more powers than others. That, in turn, means that central government policies will not apply uniformly across even England. Such variations may be desirable but they mean – as with devolving health to the Manchester city region – that central government’s remit, and policies, will differ from area to area.

The post-election debate will have to connect the separate discussions and decision-making over the devolved nations and England. This is irrespective of whether an early Constitutional Convention is held, as favoured by Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

The flaws in the present inter-governmental machinery were exposed in the Institute for Government’s report, Governing in an ever looser union, by Akash Paun and Robyn Munro. This suggested a number of changes to strengthen the way these questions are examined – both in the links between the various governments and in the way they are considered in Whitehall. The present fragmented organisation in Whitehall is no longer sufficient and there needs to be a more coherent structure to consider devolution and UK wide issues as a whole – and this needs to be matched at Westminster.

Regardless of the election result, the future of the Union is now a central political question and needs to be addressed as such rather than in the piecemeal way it has been until now.