The Devolution Priority Programme: are we ready?
Researcher
Last week the Government confirmed the six areas joining the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP): Cumbria, Cheshire & Warrington, Norfolk & Suffolk, Greater Essex, Sussex & Brighton, and Hampshire & Solent. These areas will be supported on a fast track towards establishing Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) by May 2026. To that end, local elections in these areas scheduled for May 2025 will be postponed until next year.
The urgency behind the DPP — launching less than two months after it was first announced in the English Devolution White Paper (EDWP) — is commendable. The faster devolution occurs, the faster local leaders will have access to the crucial policy levers needed to improve outcomes and drive economic growth.
So too is the willingness of the Government to grapple with complexity. Drawing Strategic Authority boundaries is not easy. Is there a trade-off between covering sensible economic geographies and aligning with regional identities? Can coterminosity be achieved with other public service boundaries? Is scale the key ingredient? Some of the areas chosen for the DPP have previously stalled in their devolution quest because these boundary questions have not been answered, for example Hampshire & Solent and Sussex & Brighton. The Government could have decided to kick the proverbial can down the road on these tricky boundary questions. It is positive that they have not.
Moving at speed and grappling with complexity are hugely welcome. If all goes to plan more than 44 million people will be living in devolved areas by May 2026. Nevertheless, key questions remain.
Certainty
For devolution to succeed, local government needs clarity on how to obtain additional powers. The Government recognise this. The EDWP lays out nine principles to be considered when agreeing Strategic Authority boundaries, five criteria for MSAs wishing to evolve into Enhanced Mayoral Strategic Authorities (EMSAs) and a Devolution Framework setting out what powers will be available to Mayoral Strategic Authorities by default.
And yet it is unclear why some areas have been excluded from the DPP, for example Medway & Kent, where the respective council leaders commented that the decision needed “further explanation and clarity” and was “totally incomprehensible”. More work is needed to ensure that certainty is provided and local government remains supportive of the devolution agenda.
Challenges
So far, demand for devolution has been enthusiastic. Many councils expressed interest in joining the DPP and the need to utilise the ministerial directive to unilaterally create Strategic Authorities seems a distant prospect.
But what happens when difficulties emerge? If certain councils are hesitant about or opposed to forming Strategic Authorities, how will the Government persuade, support or force them? Getting to 80 per cent devolution is, arguably, the easy part. Linking back to the need for certainty, the Government needs to begin considering and communicating how it will eventually convert the remaining 20 per cent.
Capacity
DPP areas will face the task of establishing Strategic Authorities and, in certain cases, reorganising into unitary councils in the space of fifteen months. Performing either of these tasks within this timeframe, alongside providing day-to-day services during a period of acute local government financial pressures and workforce shortages, would be challenging.
To successfully perform both will be doubly challenging and require a significant investment of time, resources and political capital. Government must ensure that they provide sufficient support to DPP areas, perhaps through secondments or additional funding.