Devolution and the widespread reorganisation that comes with it, has dominated the agenda for local government over the past year, as councils grapple with the challenges and grasp for the opportunities on offer.
In the manifesto that helped sweep them to power in 2024, Labour promised ‘landmark devolution legislation' and pledged to work in partnership with councils, including ‘encouraging local authorities to come together and take on new powers'.
But it came as a shock to the sector when the then-new Government embarked on wholesale reorganisation of local government across England as a precursor to handing devolved powers to newly-installed mayors and combined authorities.
A group of leading figures from the sector gathered at The MJ's Future Forum North event in Harrogate last month to express their views in a round table discussion under Chatham House rules to the National Audit Office (NAO), as they prepare a report on how the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is implementing its enhanced devolution framework.
Unclear guidance leaves councils playing ‘catch-up'
There was widespread agreement around the table that there had been a lack of detailed information from ministers about the process councils were expected to follow when reorganising and what form the combined authorities would subsequently take.
One attendee said that far from feeling ‘confident and well-informed', the situation had reached a point where ‘guidance has been slim, so it has been interpreted differently in different places – we always feel like we are playing catch-up'.
Another of those present felt Westminster itself was confused about its vision of a devolved future. They asked: ‘Is the Government clear about what it wants combined authorities to do?'
There was a consensus from the sector representatives present that combined authorities should chiefly lead efforts on economic growth and be accountable for increasing productivity. But there were suspicions that some responsibilities being handed to them could encroach on the service delivery of councils.
A delegate pointed out: ‘If we are overloading combined authorities they will take their eye off economic growth.'
‘Strategic' vs ‘combined': why the language matters
It was highlighted that the Government had opted to name the new bodies ‘strategic' rather than ‘combined' authorities. ‘Words matter,' said one of the delegates.
‘There is a danger we replace one system of two-tier government with another,' said another.
Questions were also raised about how combined authorities could lobby on matters of interest to them. Someone asked: ‘If multiple combined authorities take a stance on something, would that influence the Government through a back door?'
Risk of district councils being marginalised
n areas that have already formed combined authorities, there was further consternation about the status of district-tier councils that lack official ‘constituent' status – and therefore a seat at the table.
One person present said: ‘There is a lack of clarity about how we represent district councils across such a big area. Will they have any influence? I'm not sure yet.'
Another added: ‘Smaller local authorities might not have as loud a voice or as much of a say.
Fragile relationships could threaten progress before mayors take office.
An attendee said that while it was ‘a really exciting time' for the sector, they questioned ‘is there time for all that needs to be done?'
They added: ‘Relationships formed beforehand are going to be key.'
Others warned of the damage that had already been wrought on relations between authorities with differing proposals for the future of their areas. It was argued that they had effectively been pitted against each other by the reorganisation process and their successor authorities would then be expected to work together harmoniously under combined authorities.
‘There's a risk relationships might be broken before the mayor arrives,' one delegate said.
Another added: ‘We need to keep an eye on the prize. Combined authorities need to have an understanding that it will take years to repair the relationships.'
Discussion also turned to the pitfalls of establishing combined authorities from council leaders who in some areas may hold disparate political views or felt obliged to put the interests of their area first.
One attendee said: ‘There are some hidden challenges you don't realise until you are in it. Mayors have quite a tough gig with their cabinets – council leaders pick their own cabinets, mayors have theirs thrust upon them.
‘For the constituent leaders, it's quite a tough sell. They have to vote on decisions that might mean their area doesn't get anything, while others do.'
They added that success depended on mayors fostering a ‘culture of doing it with, not to' combined authorities.
The lack of staff in place reported by some newly-elected mayors was also highlighted in the conversation, causing ‘problems from the start'. This caused an emerging ‘frustration of mayors not able to do anything and needing to be seen doing something'.
Is central government willing to let go?
One attendee believed the Government could show more spirit of empowering local government in other areas, highlighting the announcement that an ‘outcomes framework' was to be developed for the sector.
‘The civil service are not willing to let go,' they said. ‘That's not devolution, that's performance management.'
Some exhibited scepticism over the Government's ‘test, learn and grow' programme and its various prospects for shifting the dial on innovation in public services.
However, another countered: ‘It's trying to reshape how local government and Whitehall think – taking risks, thinking differently from being systems-focused.'
But there was also a sense of hope for the future of local government as a result of devolution, encapsulated by the comment: ‘How people feel is really important. Mayors can articulate a vision and we shouldn't underestimate the ability of mayors to bring a sense of confidence to a region. Investors want to see that confidence.'
‘It's a good thing but it's bloody hard work,' said another.
NAO director Vicky Davis thanked attendees for their contributions to the discussion, which will help inform her team's report to be published this summer – Devolution in England – NAO work in progress.
COMMENT
By Vicky Davis, director, local government value for money, National Audit Office
My colleague and I were struck by how rich and engaging the discussion at the round table was. As ever, the passion, deep knowledge and insight of the local government attendees was evident.
Attendees were unequivocally positive about the benefits of devolution, including the better decision-making and increased focus on delivering collective outcomes – including on ‘big ticket' items – that partnership working and the convening power of strategic authorities brings.
Empowering strategic authorities to succeed, however, is vital and the discussion highlighted the importance of adequate support, skills and capacity to enable strategic authority leaders to deliver.
We heard how some newer strategic authorities were seizing the opportunity to learn from the experience of those more established ones. Yet with the pace of the devolution roll out, we also heard some concerns about whether there would be time to upskill sufficiently.
There were calls for greater clarity now, over the respective roles and responsibilities of strategic authorities and unitary authorities or district councils. There was recognition that local government reorganisation, and delays to it, increase uncertainty for councils who are not constituent authorities and could make it harder for elected mayors to demonstrate delivery.
We heard how essential it is for strategic authorities to measure success based on a proportionate number of outcomes. Some attendees stressed the importance of letting authorities get on with delivering what they know works and using evaluation to drive innovation.
We will explore some of these themes further in our forthcoming report on devolution (currently due to publish before the Summer Recess). It will examine how the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is implementing its enhanced devolution framework, including integrated settlements.
Our report will set out to answer whether devolved authorities receiving an integrated settlement are empowered to deliver services and programmes more efficiently and responsively, whether funding and governance arrangements are robust and transparent to enable effective decision-making and if there are suitable arrangements in place to measure outcomes.
Attendees at The MJ / NAO round table
Debbie Blackburn, director children's commissioning, nursing and wellbeing, Salford City Council
Paul Burkinshaw, chief executive, West Lindsey DC
Vicky Davis, director, local government value for money, National Audit Office
Joanne Hyde, interim executive director for corporate services, Essex CC
Jordan Moore, strategic manager, public health inequalities, Salford City Counci
Kath O'Dwyer, chair, Solace
Rose Rouse, chief executive, Darlington BC
Pam Smith, chief executive, Newcastle City Council
Shivam Sood, senior analyst, National Audit Office
Robin Tuddenham, chief executive, Calderdale MBC and president, Solace
Paul Marinko, deputy editor, The MJ (chairing)
Martin Ford, deputy commissioning editor, The MJ (reporting)
