Combined authorities are the wrong choice for the shires
Centre for Cities proposes metro mayors for the big cities and single-tier county councils for the shires.
Centre for Cities proposes metro mayors for the big cities and single-tier county councils for the shires.
The English Devolution White Paper has been promised by the Government before the end of the month, but already some clues are starting to emerge on what might be in it.
The roll out of combined authorities – the structures that in the big cities are run by elected metro mayors – to the rest of England seems like it might be in the White Paper.
Centre for Cities believes extending combined authorities to the shires is not the best way to do devolution. Shire counties need a different governance structure to the big cities.
It is understandable that the Government is considering rolling out combined authorities out across all of England. The metro mayors have been a success, and with the political imperative to push for “wider” devolution outside the big cities it is logical to at least ponder extending combined authorities out to the shires. But this approach faces challenges.
The existing structure of local government is a central barrier to devolution. The distinctions between upper-tier county councils, lower-tier district councils beneath the counties, and single-tier (i.e. combined) unitary councils and how they are semi-randomly distributed across England chop up responsibilities between councils of different shapes and sizes. Making local government simpler would make devolution much easier.
Originally, the combined authorities (and metro mayors) were developed by the big cities to solve a big city problem. They had a large number of small but densely populated single-tier unitaries all part of a shared city-region economy, but without any structures that could govern across that entire local economy. Combined authorities made their governance simpler.
The shires have a very different set-up. Some places have two-tier government with counties and districts, while others just have single-tier unitary councils.
If combined authorities (that sit above county and unitary councils) were rolled out everywhere without any other changes, this would create a “triple-tier” structure of local government in some places, with districts, counties, and combined authorities all governing often rather rural areas. Existing examples of this structure currently operating in England have not worked well.
The Government seems to be aware of this, and has stated in the Budget that it is aiming for “simplification” of local government. Simplification has been widely interpreted as abolishing lower-tier districts in the counties, also known as “reorganization”, and it necessary for serious progress on devolution.
Even with reorganization though, extending combined authorities to the rest of England risks turning the English Devolution White Paper into the English Switcheroo White Paper.
If districts are abolished, but combined authorities are simultaneously established above counties (and single-tier unitaries), all that will have been accomplished will be the demotion of counties and unitaries to lower-tier district status.
One argument that might be raised in response is that this would nevertheless provide scale for local government. In this view, separating out the economic functions for new combined authorities from local services would make it easier to deliver Local Growth Plans or future reforms to local government.
However, scale is less important than fit. Devolution will only improve growth if local economic policy is matched to local economies. Combined authorities outside the big cities struggle to achieve a consistent fit with local economies as county and unitary councils vary so much.
For example, the proposed ‘New Wessex’ deal that uses Bournemouth, Dorset, Wiltshire, Swindon, and Somerset as building blocks is so big because some of the underlying councils being used are so big.
This presents a particular problem for traditional, two-tier counties like Norfolk and Gloucestershire and fully unitarized counties like the Isle of Wight and Buckinghamshire that already align with local economies. They risk being forced into over-large combined authorities that disconnect local governance from their local economies and local identities. This is not a sustainable basis for further public sector reform or fiscal devolution.
Furthermore, it’s not obvious that combined authorities in their current form are able to absorb a big increase in responsibilities outside the leading cities.
For example, the Government seems keen for new combined authorities to take on a ‘strategic planning’ role where housing numbers are reallocated to constituent members. But Greater Manchester – the most capable and confident example of English devolution – has struggled on planning, with Stockport pulling out of a strategic plan at a final deadline, and Oldham this week voting to remove itself from the successor plan.
Expecting strategic planning and other controversial topics to go more smoothly in places where devolution is contentious is a big gamble.
To avoid these problems, the Government should instead set out in the English Devolution White Paper that big cities and counties need different arrangements, even while aligning local government around local economies.
As Centre for Cities has set out in its briefing Economy First, and the Redcliffe-Maud Report as almost implemented by Harold Wilson in 1969 set out too, this would entail a structure of combined authorities in the big cities and unitary county councils for the shires. By using district councils as building blocks to assemble councils that align with High Skill Travel to Work Areas, producing a map like that in Figure 1, with shire counties having all the powers of both local authorities and combined authorities.
Source: Centre for Cities (2024)
Rolling out combined authorities everywhere may seem less radical than an Economy First approach to devolution. But this would entail introducing new structures and geographies above existing institutions and identities across all of England. In contrast, 21/48 of the new authorities in Figure 1 either remain the same or are “obvious” reforms.
The English Devolution White Paper will be a milestone in this Government. Devolution within England has the potential to put local government on a firm funding footing, deliver public service reform, and improve both local and national economic growth. But the worst of all worlds would be to spend time and resource on a devolution settlement that achieves none of these things.
There is a real risk that forcing combined authorities out into the shires could be such an outcome. The English Devolution White Paper should instead accept that big cities and shires are different, and deliver different devolution arrangements accordingly.
Leave a comment
James Stevens
What has happened to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in your proposal?
Robin Spragg
Congratulations on producing a realistic configuration for Merseyside
Ian Jenkinson
A County “all-purpose authority” for Staffordshire is a problem because it covers two different areas. North Staffs has very different local economy to South Staffs. Commuting patterns to Manchester versus Birmingham is just one aspect. The LEP has struggled with this divide for the past 15 years