Devolution will be more circuitous than linear
Author: Liam Booth-Smith |
Writing for LGC in his first column as Localis chief executive, Liam Booth-Smith considers where the devolution agenda will go next. You can read the piece in full here or below.
The EU vote has lifted a veil of ignorance from our political leaders.
The country, as one catches dawn’s first light, is now seen with bewildering sharpness. Its divisions and inequity, but also possibility, are evident in glorious technicolour. Sophists and calculators of all political persuasion claim ownership of a new truth: “we are a country divided. Quelle surprise.”
Such sharpness is no surprise to local government. Councils are all too aware of communities living as solitudes, the economic imbalance between north and south and the inequity in life outcomes created as a result.
Local government’s response to these challenges, and more, has been a generation long call for power to be devolved. As the ship of state now re-orientates itself post Brexit, what future for devolution? Do we have cause for optimism?
Within Theresa May’s recent speech in Birmingham, oddly serving as both launch and close of her leadership campaign, there was a sense of two complementary agendas. Firstly, an economic renaissance requiring new industry. Secondly, social reform; linking education to actual job prospects, dignity in old age, communities that look to each other not inwards, etc… I’d be hard pressed to find a new PM who hasn’t called for these things, but May’s actions have matched her rhetoric. Yes, although I tap it with light fingers, we do have cause for optimism.
Our new prime minister has shown with her reshuffle that the devolution agenda is far from slipping. Decentraliser-in-chief, Greg Clark, whose new brief of business, energy and (importantly) industrial strategy will be expected to lead a more activist role for government in diversifying our economy. This is good news for those outside of the south east. Sajid Javid as the new communities secretary has already proven himself open to radical fiscal changes that could, if he was bold, become part of a revolutionary shift in how councils raise revenue (more on this in a Localis paper to come). The new government needs answers and partners; devolution can provide them, but only if councils make the case.
For the poorest parts of the UK and those with the highest proportion of lower earners, government needs to invent a whole new approach to economic intervention. There are some local economies in this country so underdeveloped only the fiscal equivalent of emergency surgery will suffice. Localised VAT and corporation tax cuts, deregulated planning, direct infrastructure investment. When a person’s heart stops beating you don’t throw them a box of paracetamol, we shouldn’t kid ourselves the economic equivalent is working either. Without a functioning economy, it is impossible for a place to give purpose to its existence. Without that purpose, it has no right to exist.
Primarily, devolution has to deliver an economic agenda; meaning more homes built, more families on the property ladder, and more jobs in places where they are needed. Ironically central government is largely the barrier here, they are the ones that need to give ground on areas such as fiscal devolution and borrowing restrictions. Economically, devolution adds up.
Social reform, critical to Theresa May’s goal of turning the Conservative party into the worker’s champion, is another matter. In this regard, devolution has over promised and under delivered. It may be difficult to read, but the rhetoric of devolution has overtaken reality on public services. Health and care integration is a hostage to fortune (the health secretary’s fortune mostly), children’s services are under heavy regulatory bombardment, and the budget for the universal place based services is getting ever tighter.
Much of this is not the fault of local government, but it could be that the balance between the dual identities of economic catalyst and service reformers may, in the end, be too difficult to manage. I believe that it is possible for local government to be both, but I’m not blind to the political reality.
My feeling is that devolution will become more circuitous than linear. Some things may need to go up to Whitehall. For certain services, such as children’s services, perhaps even surrendered completely. In return for significant fiscal devolution, could certain elements of planning be on the table?
There is no set template to follow for devolution, we are creating this as we go along. My message to Whitehall and local government is the same (and should give you a guide as to how Localis will work under me) – remove all limiting assumptions.