Devolution plans for England could also be a game changer for Wales

Martin Shipton

I am no fan of “shock jocks”. To me the way they conduct themselves provides a template for the supposedly “no nonsense, common-sensical approach” that is actually too simplistic by far, and has driven our public discourse into the arms of disturbingly unsubtle right-wing populists.

One such is Nick Ferrari of LBC Radio, who this week dismissed on air the UK Government’s newly published proposals for English devolution as a subject no-one is interested in. What they are much more interested in, said Ferrari, is the plight of WASPI women who were first betrayed by the Conservatives over their pension rights, and are now being betrayed by Labour.

It’s significant, I suggest, that LBC stands for London Broadcasting Company, which was well-known when the radio station was launched in 1973, but is not as well-known now, thanks to what has become the ubiquitous habit of dropping full names in favour of context-free initials.

None of us should be surprised that a London-based commentator like Ferrari will dismiss as irrelevant any idea that could rob the UK capital of the dominating role it has played economically and politically for centuries.

Why tinker with a constitutional arrangement that has benefitted London and its hinterland for so long?

Centralised 

What led to the establishment of devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales 25 years ago was the belief that both the economy and political structures of the UK were far too centralised, and that making the UK less dominated by London would create greater prosperity for all.

We can argue about how successful the change has been, with anti-devolutionists claiming that continuing problems affecting the NHS, education and the economy demonstrate that what was hoped for hasn’t been achieved.

Those on the other side of the argument claim that the UK’s over-centralised economy remains responsible for such shortcomings.

In Wales the tendency has been to concentrate on how the devolution settlement has worked out for us, with the occasional look at Scotland, especially when things seem to be going well – not so much recently, therefore.

We haven’t paid much attention to the situation in England. Largely, it has to be said, that’s because England didn’t follow the same path as we did on a regional basis.

Referendum 

There was only one referendum on the idea of setting up a regional assembly – in the North East of England in 2004 – and it resulted in a landslide victory for the No campaign. The spin doctor for the No campaign was one Dominic Cummings.

Devolution in England was resurrected in another form by the Tories in the second decade of the 21st century, with the advent of Metro Mayors.

Front-line politicians like Andy Burnham – formerly Health Secretary in the UK Government and twice a Labour leadership candidate – decided the role had enough scope and power to make it worth standing as Greater Manchester Mayor.

His time in office has generally been seen as positive, one of his achievements being to secure additional investment in the region.

The Labour UK Government led by Keir Starmer has established a Council of the Nations and Regions. There’s been some resistance to it in Wales and Scotland, with some in both countries looking down their nose at the body, making the point that Wales and Scotland aren’t regions but nations, and why should the First Ministers of both countries be expected to consort with the likes of the Mayor of Toytown.

This, in my view, is a mistake. If the UK is to be reconfigured as a more decentralised entity, accommodation will have to be made for the regions of England as well as the nations.

What we have in the proposals for England is, in effect, the evolution of devolution.

‘Stifling initiative’

The White Paper issued by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner states: “England is one of the most centralised developed countries” and that the “controlling hand of central government is stifling initiative and development”.

It offers a generational switch in favour of “determined devolution”. The larger goals of the whole exercise are to stimulate economic growth, improve delivery of public services and foster government with, rather than to, the people.

Setting out the new proposed structures, the White Paper makes it clear that the UK Government’s preference is to create a network of elected mayors. It states: “We will create in law the concept of a Strategic Authority. All Strategic Authorities will belong to one of the following levels:

* 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 government’s strong preference is for partnerships that bring more than one local authority together over a large geography. In exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State will have the power to designate an individual local authority as a Foundation Strategic Authority only. Our ambition remains for all parts of England to ultimately have a Mayoral (and eventually Established Mayoral) Strategic Authority.”

Local politicians

The message seems to be getting across to local politicians in England that change could provide significant new opportunities. The Tory leader of Kent County Council, Roger Gough, issued a statement saying: “This is the most important and potentially transformational issue facing this council in many years.

“Devolution is a key policy of the government, central, it says, to kickstarting economic growth which will involve handing decision-making powers to local political leaders and providing millions of pounds to shape major policies and projects on a regional level.”

There are, inevitably, those who think the emphasis is misplaced. I have read several articles in London-based publications that dismiss the need to pursue English devolution on a regional basis, and advocate devolution to England as another nation comparable to Wales and Scotland. For me, such an approach is an argument for retention of the status quo, where London continues to reign supreme, politically as well as economically.

The EU, to which we no longer belong, is fully committed to the development of regional economies.

Such a view is partly derived from the way in which West Germany was configured in the late 1940s. The partition of Germany led to a country where the aim was to have a network of states that were roughly equal in terms of prosperity; the division of Berlin doubtless made this easier.

Cash transfers

This was achieved by creating an equalisation fund which included cash transfers from more prosperous states to less prosperous ones. Ironically, these arrangements were overseen by British lawyers, seconded to devise the fairest constitution for the new country.

When Germany was reunited in 1990, five new states from former East Germany were incorporated into the federal republic on the same basis.

Creating stronger English regions is in Wales’ best interests. We often complain that we don’t have enough leverage within the UK because we are a small nation with only 32 seats out of 650 in the House of Commons. Pragmatically, but also on the basis of economic justice, we need to make common cause with the underfunded regions of England.

Working together, we could make a real difference.