Labour’s uniform approach to devolution in a country which is anything but uniform

It’s a funny type of “devolution revolution” which centralises power rather than handing it out. Yet in some ways Angela Rayner’s plans do just that.

Labour’s reforms of local government, announced this week in a White Paper, are perhaps most notable for the disbandment of district councils. These councils are responsible for things like rubbish collections, recycling, public spaces and (most importantly for the Government) planning. Put another way, they are in charge of the sort of things voters notice when they go for a walk.

District councils (which are small) are to be replaced with unitary authorities (which are typically bigger and responsible for more services like libraries, education, transport and trading standards). Unitary authorities will then be encouraged to form strategic authorities which will be a bit like the combined authorities which already exist.

Labour want each strategic authority to have a mayor. If councils don’t agree to join together and form a strategic authority, the government will step in and force them to. It’s the sort of dry sounding, technical, reorganisation that can change everything, change a little, or be a complete damp squib.

For all the talk of empowering communities to “take back control from Westminster”, most of the changes seem to be designed to help Labour’s mission to increase house building. The basic premise seems to be that if you make local authorities larger, then the odds of a development being in the back yard of a planning officer or member of a planning committee is reduced.

There is no doubt that district councils have traditionally enjoyed their ability to say “no” to planning applications a bit too much. The political danger for Labour is also slightly reduced as the areas where there are district councils tend to be in the south east where a) Labour has traditionally not been in power and b) housing shortages are particularly acute. To be frank, stopping the NIMBYS is also the sort of politics some of this government enjoys. It has a whiff of class / property warfare.

At a Combined Authority level (soon to be Strategic Authority) there are also attempts to make it easier to get things done. Anyone who has been involved in large spatial plans can attest for the ways in which one activist or counsellor can quickly derail the development of thousands of homes or much needed energy infrastructure. Unanimity between councils might be very democratic, but it’s a barrier to growth. By moving to simple majority voting, the government hope developments covering multiple councils will be able to move forward, even when they are against the will of residents in some of those areas.

Away from planning and voting, there are a whole range of other changes too. New funding settlements for Mayors, powers over local transport and the national rail network, skills responsibilities, and regional innovation funding to drive business growth are just some of the measures floated.

Several questions remain. Will any of this deliver more housing or development? If so, will it be soon enough to have a positive impact on the next election? Will voters object to changes to local democracy? Regardless of how councils are structured, do they have enough resources to deliver for residents? For all the talk of devolution, how often will Whitehall use their new powers to step in? Do workers in local government have the necessary skills and expertise to use the new powers to drive growth?

The long and short of this is that soon we will have fewer local leaders who really matter but that the local leaders we do have (many of them will be called “mayor”) will have far more power. These reforms are intended to bring more uniformity to local government. But by creating new, more powerful, political figures, we are likely to continue to see regionally unique approaches to government.

 

By Tom Anelay, Head of Public Affairs