The role of Whitehall in a more devolved England
The pace of English devolution has hastened in recent years, with areas including Greater Manchester, Cornwall, and the West Midlands agreeing devolution deals with central government. In light of these developments, the Institute for Government held an event to discuss the role of Whitehall in a more devolved England. The discussion focused on three key questions: how will Whitehall be involved in future devolution; what might it devolve; and who will it be devolving to?
How will Whitehall be involved in future devolution?
Devolution deals between government and local areas have so far been signed in eight places. As panellist Will Garton, Deputy Director of Local Government and Reform, Public Services, at HM Treasury, reminded the audience, the devolution agenda encompasses more than just devolution deals – for example, the Government’s commitment to local retention of business rates. Yet much of the discussion centred on devolution deals and the process by which they are reached.
Dr Sarah Ayres, from Bristol University, discussed the recently published Political Studies Association (PSA) research commission report, which found that the deals process so far has been dominated by ’informal governance‘, in which networks and informal relations play a major role.
Ayres and the PSA commission argued that a degree of informality can create a more efficient deal-making process, where discussions need to clear fewer bureaucratic hurdles. Local areas may also be more inclined to develop innovative proposals if they have a less formal space in which to do this. Yet Ayres also expressed caution about having too much informality in the process, which can risk it becoming opaque to the public, disengaging them from the process and presenting a challenge to the future legitimacy of such deals.
These findings were echoed by Joe Randall, co-author of the IfG’s recent Making Devolution Deals Work report. IfG research found that while the current process has notable strengths – in particular, clear political leadership and commitment to the agenda – a major challenge for local areas is the lack of clarity around the process and timetable which devolution deals follow.
Garton, along with Tom Walker, Director of the Government’s Cities and Local Growth Unit, offered some insight into how the deals process works based on their experiences of previous negotiations. Garton stressed that there is ‘no great mystique’ around the process.
Both also argued that the very nature of a deals-based process means that informal conversations are crucial – and that these need to be private, so that Whitehall and local areas can be candid with each other while negotiations are ongoing.
Questions remain over whether any clearer guidance will be given to areas about how the deals process will work in future. Making Devolution Deals Work recommended that a more effective future deals process could be supported by greater clarity on the process of drawing up deals, and a clearly communicated timeline that allows areas sufficient time to engage key stakeholders.
What might Whitehall devolve?
IfG research has found that the current deals process contains ‘unwritten rules’ that local areas have found difficult to discern. As Ayres noted, areas have been particularly uncertain about what is and is not on the table for devolution. The Government has been clear that it wants deals to be bespoke, drawn up around an area’s specific needs, rather than any centrally-imposed guidelines. Yet, as the PSA report suggests, local areas, without clear guidance, risk turning to earlier deals as precedent for what can be agreed.
Clarity on what may be devolved – for example, around skills and education – seems especially important in light of another PSA finding: that local areas are not sharing information and practice about devolution. Both Garton and Walker were hesitant about the kind of role Whitehall could play in correcting this, arguing that a knowledge-sharing guide produced by Whitehall was likely to be bland, and less useful than local areas meeting with each other to discuss their experiences. Ongoing IfG research is exploring how areas share knowledge and practice about local-level public services, to offer some broader insights into how this may be done more effectively in future.
Garton and Walker did have some practical recommendations for areas drawing up devolution deals: offer specific proposals, not vague statements. Whitehall should reflect on whether clarifying what is (and is not) on the table for devolution will prevent local authorities from wasting valuable resources, and create a more effective deal-making process.
Who will Whitehall be devolving to?
In 2017, elections for new mayors will be held for the first time in many of the areas that have signed devolution deals. Yet, as audience questions highlighted, there is still uncertainty about whether directly elected mayors are a prerequisite for devolution.
Both Garton and Walker were clear that the Government feels it is important to have single lines of accountability in areas receiving new powers; and that directly-elected mayors are the Government’s preferred way of ensuring this. Reflecting on previous attempts to introduce mayors, which proved challenging, both emphasised that these mayors are different: in particular, through sitting at combined authority level, they will be able to provide leadership across whole metro-areas and their economies.
In the Budget, new devolution deals were announced for Greater Lincolnshire, East Anglia, and the West of England. The Government has made it clear that devolution is an important and ongoing agenda, and one that many local areas seem eager to partake in: 38 made proposals to the Government before last autumn’s Spending Review. However, Whitehall needs to ask questions of itself about the process of devolution, and what it is prepared to devolve to whom. Thinking through these issues now will help to create a more effective devolution process, allowing areas to focus on the major challenges they currently face.