A Labour government should take on the vested interests hindering devolution, writes Richard Leese
Writing shortly after a vote that shows just how divided Britain is, demographically and geographically, both within places and between places, might seem an odd time to be pondering the merits of devolution. However, the referendum result also serves to highlight that, though economic growth and job creation are vitally important, they are not in themselves enough and that we also need a society that is and feels economically inclusive. If economic growth is to be achieved as a route to a fairer country, then the case for devolution has never been stronger.
In a city like Manchester we might well be making the case for an opt-out from Brexit, for us, for example, to be able to retain free movement of labour, something that is a major factor in a flourishing local economy and improved quality of life. The short-term reality, though, as national government gets increasingly mired in trying to figure out how disengagement from the European Union will work, will be that we need to keep the devolution show on the road.
Keeping the show on the road will very much depend on those places that have secured devolution deals getting successfully through to next year’s city-region mayoral elections. Whatever the merits of metro mayors, something I will return to later, once they are in place turning the tide of devolution back will be increasingly difficult. As things stand, from May next year, if London is included, around 50 per cent of England will have directly elected figures at subregional level, collectively with an enormous mandate, and, with the exception of London, all largely operating in a one-tier system with suitable checks and balances on the powers of the mayor.
It will inevitably take time for these new models of local government to develop and mature. In the meantime the task will be to consolidate the process, though never giving up the demands for yet more powers to flow from Whitehall to a more local level. And this is not just powers to mayoral combined authorities but the right powers to the right level which might be the subregional level, might be to subnational bodies like Transport for the North, to local authorities, or beyond to the neighbourhood.
Certainly places like Greater Manchester have some big issues to deliver on, and, if we fail to deliver, we will make it much harder, if not impossible, for those who seek to follow in our footsteps. In just a matter of months we are beginning to demonstrate just what the devolution and integration of health and social care, in reality a pragmatic mixture of devolution and decentralisation, can achieve. Apart from the benefits of a joined-up, collaborative approach to service delivery we are building the wider connections between health and a whole range of related issues – homelessness, climate change, and, above all, work. We are also, across the local government-health divide, recognising just what a big challenge we have taken on.
From next year, we will have the equally large challenge of turning a deregulated and often chaotic bus network – one that certainly does not meet the needs of many of its passengers, potential passengers or the local economy – into one that is planned and integrated, including integration with light and heavy rail, and with integrated, smart ticketing. This would be a daunting task even without the fierce opposition of the major bus companies, and a task that, successfully accomplished, will be as transformatory as the developments in health and social care.
Get all this and more right and Greater Manchester will be radically changed for the better and the devolution march will accelerate. Get this wrong, and there are still centralisers who will seize any opportunity to take power back to the centre.
There are also dangers from those within the Labour party who would like to characterise current developments in devolution as a Tory-George Osborne initiative and, worse still, that Labour politicians doing devolution deals are somehow colluding with the enemy. This conveniently forgets that it was a Labour government that introduced devolution to Scotland, Wales and London, and that it was a Labour government that passed the legislation that made combined authorities possible and that the Greater Manchester combined authority order was laid by a Labour secretary of state. Perhaps less well known is that Greater Manchester’s first devolution deal was signed not in 2014 with Osborne, but five years earlier with Liam Byrne when he was chief secretary to the Treasury.
What is the case is that current Tory government support for devolution is largely driven by the growth agenda. This is important and should not be discarded. But where the Labour party should really be making the running is on public service reform and place-based service delivery – the means by which we better protect the most vulnerable and needy within society but at the same time maximise the extent to which everybody can contribute to and benefit from growth.
An incoming Labour government should not seek to reverse any of the progress made over the last two decades, but rather should seek to take it further and embed it in a new constitutional settlement. It should also recognise that an unreformed and unintegrated central government machine is now an enormous obstacle to economic and social progress. A Labour government should be prepared to take on the vested interests that still seek to block and undermine every devolutionary step.
There are still major gaps in the devolution offer. If the objective is inclusive growth and a fairer society, to have 0-19 education and skills almost totally excluded has got to be wrong. This is not about who runs schools and colleges. It is about what they do, how they relate to the local economy and how they join up with other local public services to ensure our young people grow up well educated, highly skilled and fully prepared for a healthy aspirational adult life.
Business rates localisation does not equal fiscal devolution, and it is the latter that is a necessary tool for embedding devolution and for ensuring proper democratic accountability. As local authorities and combined authorities take on more powers and responsibilities, if they are to have a proper relationship with the electorate, they have to account for raising the money as well as spending it.
Finally, there are major issues of governance to resolve. At risk of contradicting myself, a Labour government should reject both the Tories’ anarchic approach to boundaries and their obsession with a single form of governance. For devolution to work, much of it needs to be based on boundaries that make economic sense and central government should determine, not in an arbitrary or dictatorial way, what those boundaries should be. They might even, at the same time, grasp the nettle of two-tier authorities once and for all.
On governance, I see no sensible alternative to combination based as far as possible on as near as we can get to functional economic areas. However, these areas ought to be able to develop alternative mayoral models as long as they can demonstrate that they are robust and accountable. National politicians of all parties have tended to look to the United States for inspiration but without ever bothering to find out how local government works there. They would be surprised to learn that some 41 per cent of American cities with a population of more than 2,500, including San Diego (a million people and the home of Silicon Valley) do not have executive mayors. Other models are possible here too though we also have to recognise that the more that is devolved, the stronger the case for at least an element of direct accountability.
Labour went into the 2015 general election with exciting and radical commitments to public services based not on departmental and professional silos but on people, their families and the places they live. For 2020 we need to build on that and demonstrate that we are the party that will really give our people the opportunity to make and control their own future.
————————————
Richard Leese is leader of Manchester city council
————————————
Come along to hear Richard and many others at this weekend’s conference, Governing for Britain: Local answers to national questions – get your ticket here
————————————