The United Kingdom is made up of four nations: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, but they are not equal.
England alone accounts for more than 80% of the Union’s population, wealth and Members of Parliament.
Ensuring fairness between all the citizens in the UK is a permanent headache for any Westminster government.
Thanks to devolution brought in by the last Labour government, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have elected parliaments or assemblies of their own. England does not.
What is more, government spending per head of population is significantly and consistently higher outside England. In the years 2021/22 it was 18% more in Northern Ireland, 17% in Scotland and 13% in Wales.
This week [on Monday] the new Labour government is publishing the latest attempt to address the problem or, at least, to appease England’s sense of grievance. The English Devolution Bill was promised in July’s King’s Speech and now it is being published.
The word “devolution” implies that England will be getting some of what the other nations have got. That is not the case.
‘England not being offered devolution’
The government does not plan to enhance the collective identity of the English; instead, it wants to contain it by creating regional identities.
Devolution here means breaking down England by transferring some powers to some regional metro mayors and combined local councils.
In this bill “devolution” risks being a misnomer according to Colin Copus, emeritus professor of local politics at De Montfort University (DMU).
“England is not being offered devolution, rather decentralisation of tasks, functions, responsibilities and some budgets,” he explains in a paper for Leicester’s (DMU) Local Governance Research Centre.
“Devolution – the passing of primary legislative powers to another body – such as in Scotland and Wales – is not on offer to England. In the absence of an English parliament, England will remain at the back of the pack in the devolution stakes,” he says.
The bill is more a reorganisation of local government and councils rather than a significant transfer of power from the centre.
There will be no additional funds nor will revenue-raising powers be devolved, at this stage. Local administrations in the areas included in the plan will however be able to choose how they spend resources from a “single pot” of money, rather than having to follow specific directives from Westminster.
It is estimated that about 60% of England will be covered by the new arrangements, with an aspiration of some 85% by the next election.
The government points out that areas which already enjoy devolved powers, such as London and Greater Manchester, enjoy greater economic growth than those outside the system.
There are already 12 areas with a “devolution deal” including London, Manchester, West Midlands, Tees Valley and the North East.
Plans are in the pipeline for metro mayors in Hull and East Yorkshire, with further provisional agreements possible, mostly without mayors, in Suffolk, Norfolk, Lancashire, Devon & Torbay, Cornwall and Buckinghamshire.
Council of Nations and Regions
The government proposes that the metro mayors and combined authorities will be part of a “Council of the Nations and Regions”.
The local government minister Jim McMahon has declared that it is “not acceptable” not to have a mayor. Those areas without one may miss out.
This includes some of the most struggling parts of the country, including Leicester, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies poorer areas are losing out already “with councils in the most deprived fifth of areas in England receiving a share of funding that is 10% below updated assessments of their share of needs, while the least deprived receive a share that is 13% higher”.
Launching the English Devolution proposals Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner promised: “For too long, Westminster government has tightly gripped control and held back opportunities and potential for towns, cities, and villages across the country”.
Professor Copus disagrees: “Let’s be clear, devolution for England is not about the centre’s conversion to powerful local government – rather it is about how local government can contribute to the centre’s priority of economic growth and development.”
The related planning reforms announced by Rayner last week do indeed suggest that decision-making will be streamlined, bypassing local objections and some council decision-making. This may be necessary to achieve the house-building targets nationally but it cannot be classed as “devolution”.
Local government is complex in England. Some areas may already have three tiers, from parish and district councils upward.
Local government not one of Starmer’s protected spending areas
The government plans to abolish dozens of councils by establishing unitary authorities. This should save the Treasury some £3bn. Local government is not one of Sir Keir Starmer’s protected spending areas.
Austerity also means that there is less money to go around anyway.
Overall allocations to local government in England, most of which is provided by the Treasury, has been cut by 19% in real terms since 2010.
Major councils. including Birmingham and Nottingham, have been forced into special measures after going bust. The central government has no plans to look again at the main “local” taxes, business rates and council tax.
While the English face cuts following Rachel Reeves budget in October, the SNP’s Budget for Scotland announced this month was a giveaway.
More money for health and social care, social security, roads, prisons, education and skills.
At PMQs, Starmer was taunted by an SNP MP, that in Scotland there is no two-child benefit cap or abolition of the winter fuel allowance. University tuition fees and means-tested social care are covered as well.
In-built bias against England
This is all because of the 50-year-old Barnett formula, established to determine how much the other nations should get from central government.
It has an in-built bias against England and is slow to take account of population shifts. Scotland’s population is shrinking while England’s grows.
For obvious political reasons, the English Devolution Bill does not go anywhere near this discrepancy. The extra money could be seen as an insurance against a break-up of the UK. No Westminster government wants to reopen Barnett.
Labour is locked into an existential fight with the Scottish nationalists.
Besides, plans for an English parliament have proved unworkable in a UK parliament designed to serve the United Kingdom. David Cameron introduced “EVEL” – English votes for English Laws by MPs from English constituencies only – but Boris Johnson got rid of it.
An attempt by a previous Labour deputy prime minister to divide England up into regions also failed after a referendum in the North East rejected the late John Prescott’s plans for regional parliaments. The Brexit mastermind, Dominic Cummings, cut his political teeth campaigning against the idea.
The English Devolution white paper may clarify lines of command from the centre to parts of England. Devolution it is not. For better or worse it will not attempt to answer the England question in our lopsided United Kingdom.
