Burnham’s devolution agenda can lay strong foundations for public service reform

Public services’ administrative boundaries have developed haphazardly for decades. There has rarely been coordination between different parts of the state, with local government, NHS and police force boundaries set by Whitehall departments pursuing their own priorities.  

The logic determining boundaries differs between services. Local authorities are often on the footprints of historic towns or counties, such as Rutland. Mayoral strategic authorities (MSAs) have been established on functional economic footprints. NHS and police boundaries often prioritise operational concerns and quirks. For example, one of the original 42 NHS integrated care boards (ICBs) was Frimley ICB, which the NHS established on the footprint of one particularly highly performing NHS trust, despite its boundaries carving out strange tranches of local authorities across Surrey, Berkshire, and Hampshire.  ¹³ https://frimley.icb.nhs.uk/about-us/frimley-health-and-care-integrated-care-system/our-places-and-partners-2

The result is a wonky patchwork of overlapping boundaries that makes devolution much harder.  

If local areas are to define their own priorities and spend money in ways that support them – whether improving employment, population health or other outcomes – organisations delivering services in those areas need to work together. That is made much harder when different services are trying to address the needs of different populations living in mismatched geographies.

Aligned boundaries make it easier for services to collaborate

Aligned boundaries help local services collaborate to improve the joint priorities. For example, if an ICB aligns with a single mayoral strategic authority (MSA), rather than, say, spanning three, it has to manage two fewer sets of relationships, meetings, spending plans and sets of priorities.

Matched boundaries also make it easier for central government to devolve power effectively. When organisations operate across the same geography, it is much clearer how funding flows into an area and who is responsible for spending it. That, in turn, makes it easier for central government and the public to hold local leaders accountable for the outcomes they achieve.  

Burnham may have a rosy view of what devolution can achieve because Greater Manchester is one of the few areas that has well-aligned boundaries. There, the boundaries of the ICB, the police force, the MSA and the 10 constituent local authorities line up. Interviewees in the MSA tell us that has helped them become the forerunner of new ways of working in public services. Burnham should make sure the rest of the country has the same advantages he enjoyed while mayor in Greater Manchester.

A stronger centre can create a coherent map

Under Starmer, the government launched reorganisations of ICBs, police forces, and local authorities, while continuing the roll out of MSAs. But a combination of Starmer’s hands-off approach and a weak centre of government meant departments pursued their own priorities. Services are being put through a highly disruptive reorganisation that will result in a map that is as illogical as the one Starmer inherited.

Burnham should learn from that mistake. A coherent map with all services aligned to the same geographic footprint – such as mayoral strategic authority boundaries – would make it much easier for him to pursue his devolution plans. That larger goal is far more important than departmental concerns and preferences for their geographies.  

Luckily, Burnham seems to recognise that a weak centre of government under Starmer led to poor decision making. He has launched reforms in the centre such as the establishment of “Number 10 North” and changes to the Cabinet Office, which he is hoping will give him more power to drive his agenda through government.  

Boundary alignment should be the first test of his attempts to strengthen the centre. If Burnham can override departments’ special pleading, it will show that he is able to deliver across government in a way that Starmer failed to do.  

Burnham should quickly use his devolution priorities to bring departments into line

At his political capital high point, and with newly-installed ministers yet to be swayed by their departments’ points of view, Burnham cannot afford to delay

He also needs to act quickly because most reorganisations are already underway. The government recently announced the next wave of new unitary councils and has sketched out tentative boundaries for future MSAs. The NHS completed the first tranche of ICB reorganisation in April this year, abolishing 12 ICBs and replacing them with six,  ¹⁴ https://www.england.nhs.uk/integratedcare/integrated-care-in-your-area/  and aims to complete the process next April. The NHS is supposedly aiming for alignment with local government and MSA boundaries but has acknowledged that it will likely need to reorganise ICBs again when MSA boundaries are finalised.  ¹⁵ https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-08-29/73486/

Police force reorganisation is the least progressed of the Starmer government’s public service reforms, with the Independent Review of Police Force Structures (launched by Starmer) due to report to the government “this summer”.  ¹⁶ https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2026-06-04/6784  However, no final decisions have been made about the future number or boundaries of forces. Burnham should step in to recalibrate that process.

He should, of course, consider the operational concerns of departments, and will be aware that intervening now will also cause more short-term disruption to services. But it is better to frontload any additional changes into a one-off process rather than inflicting further pain in a few years. A rational map is not a panacea for getting public service reform right, but it would create a solid base for future reforms and send a decisive signal that Burnham is serious about a different approach to delivering public services.