The Commons: Devolution in England
Michael Kabus
Since the late 1990’s, more powers have been given to individual local and regional mayors across England, covering areas such as transport and housing. Devolution in the United Kingdom is a high priority on the political agenda, with successive governments hoping to address regional inequalities and reshape the way decisions are made in Westminster that affect every council. With the government’s publication of the ‘English Devolution White Paper’ in December 2024, plans are being made to deepen the powers of individual directly elected mayors to establish new strategic authorities, rather than moving away from having decisions made predominantly in Westminster. The reorganisation of government aims to transfer greater responsibility over transport, housing, planning, and economic development to local leaders, making decisions directly for the elected area. Rather than relying on Westminster, ministers argue that local leaders know about the needs and priorities for their individual regions.
Supporters argue that local leaders are better suited to make decisions for their councils and would allow citizens more power to vote for leaders who better cater to their community. Whilst the government and supporters view this as a progressive step for more autonomy over councils, questions are being raised about whether this is a genuine step for decentralisation or if this is simply a redistribution of power that still leaves councils dependent on Westminster.
The Government's Vision for Local Power
Shortly after Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s election in July 2024, he claimed his government would let "those with skin in the game - those that know their communities - make much better decisions". This statement hinted at a major feature of the Labour government’s priority of England’s devolution.
Following this, the government introduced its English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, alongside the publication of the English Devolution White Paper. With these publications stated, the Government's claims to deliver a Plan for Change aimed at local councils to tackle crises inherited with poor outcomes for public services. England’s centralised system of governance has prevented local communities from shaping policies that best reflect their own individual economic needs. Through the Government’s Devolution White Paper, ministers have proposed a transfer of power from Westminster to local communities and leaders.
With this transfer of power from Westminster into local communities and leaders, the government strives to create a ‘new architecture’ to legislate different strategic authorities. With the new concept of different strategic authorities, the government proposes three different strategic authorities to differentiate them.
The three different Strategic Authorities (data in The English Devolution White Paper, provided by GOV.UK)
Foundation Strategic Authorities: these include non-mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities automatically, and any local authority designated as a Strategic Authority without a Mayor.
Mayoral Strategic Authorities: the Greater London Authority, all Mayoral Combined Authorities and all Mayoral Combined County Authorities will automatically begin as Mayoral Strategic Authorities. Those who meet specified eligibility criteria may be designated as Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities. This unlocks further devolution, most notably an Integrated Settlement.
The aim for this vision for local power is to encourage growth and council’s own individual power.
Writing in the English Devolution White Paper, Jim McMahon OBE MP. Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution argued that:
“The work to repair the foundations, bring in consistent and accountable structures, and shift decision making outwards, is not the end in itself. It should only be seen as a means to realising the change the country voted for, and which the electorate will judge the government on.”
Jim McMahon OBE MP, Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution
These proposals seek to address England’s long-standing reputation for its centralised system. Within this centralised system, criticisms have been raised whether their nationwide policies, being a ‘one size fits all’ approach, is effective for tackling local authorities' own needs.
Co-author Professor Michael Kenny wrote in his report from the University of Cambridge’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy how England’s current centralised nature is preventing local democratic and economic growth.
“England is one of the most centrally governed countries in the developed world, yet the nature of its administration is a source of confusion and frustration to its citizens. There is palpable disillusionment with the grip of the London-centric UK government, especially when you travel further away from Westminster. This has created a powerful current of democratic disenchantment.”
By transferring greater autonomy to regional leaders, Labour argues that local governments can tailor policies to better their own communities and services to tackle regional inequalities.
However, while reforms have been accepted by local leaders to better control their own communities' needs, critics argue that transferring responsibilities is not the same as transferring power.
Can Local Leaders Deliver Better Outcomes?
At the very core of the government’s plan for devolution is the belief that those who are more integrated into local issues will be most effective at solving them. Supporters argue that councils and directly elected mayors possess a greater understanding of their own social and economic challenges facing them and their communities, rather than ministers in Westminster. Supporters argue that this will not only empower local authorities to have more effective decisions in their areas, but lead to more effective public services and empower stronger relationships with elected mayors and their communities. With locally informed decision-making, supporters argue that councils are able to respond quickly to the challenges facing their distinct areas.
“Devolving real power to communities across the country represents the best hope of restoring people’s confidence in the political system. It is not a panacea in itself but it could go a long way in helping to heal the rifts that divide our society.”
Mayor Steve Rotheram's keynote speech to the Brexit North Summit
With a uniform national policy on transport and housing, Westminster is not taking into account how transport policies in cities differ in more rural regions. With devolved authorities developing solutions to their own transport and housing priorities, communities can have individual policies that better suit their environment, and in turn, make them more efficient and better suited to their region.
How has devolution worked?
In 2025, the government negotiated its first devolution deal for Greater Manchester, in turn creating the first region in England with devolved health and care responsibilities. Findings in 2022 about the effect of devolution on health determined that Greater Manchester had better life expectancy than expected after devolution. These findings also conclude that these results occurred in the areas with the highest income deprivation and lowest life expectancy, suggesting a narrowing in inequalities within Greater Manchester’s health sector. As a result of these findings, supporters see Greater Manchester as proof that devolution can deliver improvements in public sectors.
Greater Manchester- A Model for Devolution
The Greater Manchester devolution included the transfer of powers from Westminster to the ten Greater Manchester districts and a £22 billion ($29.1 billion USD), budget to better reflect the needs of the region’s 2.8 million people, according to Bury Council. This devolution plan meant that for the first time, local leaders and clinicians would be able to design services to directly meet the needs of local communities.
These findings show Greater Manchester has made considerable headway for improving their health and social sector since assuming devolved responsibility. Promising findings show that between 2016 and 2020, life expectancy increased by 0.233 years, or about 12 weeks, compared with what we might have expected without devolution. The conclusion also evaluates 98 measures that are linked to health system performance. This provides a statistic on how the region’s devolved health sector has positively affected patients' experience.
While these findings are not solely attributed to devolution measures, supporters argue that they do demonstrate the benefits of allowing local leaders to take action on the specific needs of their communities and sectors. One notable finding was that the areas of greatest improvement were observed in the areas with the highest levels of income deprivation and the lowest life expectancy. This finding suggests that devolved decision-making could have contributed to the narrowing of the health inequalities across Greater Manchester.
Devolution without Independence
Although Greater Manchester is presented as evidence that devolution can deliver improvements to public services such as health and social sectors, critics argue that this isolated example does not necessarily prove that power has genuinely shifted from Westminster. Critics argue that whilst local authorities have been given greater responsibilities, they still remain constrained by central government through their funding and oversight.
One of the most prominent criticisms of devolution within England is that local authorities continue to lack financial autonomy. Despite receiving these additional responsibilities over sectors such as transport and housing, devolved councils remain heavily reliant on grants allocated by the central government. Critics argue that this creates an imbalance of power, with councils expected to deliver improved services but relying on finances funded by Westminster. In the wake of the Government’s White Paper, the bill has been heavily criticised for not allocating enough money to devolution systems and Westminster retaining power.
As a result of this criticism, questions have been raised on whether responsibilities have actually been devolved if local leaders cannot sustainably and independently finance the policies that they are expected to implement.
The concerns have also been raised by local government leaders, such as Northumberland County Council leader Glen Sanderson. In a letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Glen Sanderson has warned against devolution on the premise that powers are being “sucked up” from councils, rather than empowering local communities. Sanderson, who is the only Conservative council leader on the North East combined authority, raised concerns that “powers could be sucked up from the community and their councils” rather than central government. Although Sanderson’s council “enthusiastically supported” the creation of the new combined authority for the North East, he added a plea to central government to “respect and maintain the role of local government” as “constructive delivery partners with national government”, who “are closest to the needs and priorities of the communities we service”. Sanderson’s concern marks wider concerns that devolution in England could potentially create another layer of governance whilst maintaining Westminster's power, rather than empowering local councils to make decisions on their county.
For many experts, the central question of England’s devolution agenda is this- can power be truly considered devolved if Westminster continues to control the resources that enable local authorities to exercise it?
Ultimately, the debate on devolution in England centres on whether policies devolve responsibility or devolve power. Many constitutional experts argue that genuine devolution requires not only control that was previously in Westminster, but also the freedom to make long-term decisions on sectors relevant and the independence to enact change to them. While the government presents these devolution reforms as the most significant transfer of power away from Westminster, critics maintain the view that until local authorities are given greater power and autonomy over their own finance and policies, devolution in England is rather an incomplete plan to transfer power, rather than a significant shift from the centralised system of Westminster as a political hub of power.