The government’s English Devolution White Paper promises a “permanent shift of power away from Whitehall”. But big questions remain about how this will apply in London when the English Devolution Bill is finally unveiled. Will the devolution be genuine? Should London be worried? Could it be left behind?
Those were the questions posed to a panel of heavyweight academics and think tank experts at City Hall last week as the London Assembly’s oversight committee began a probe into what new powers might be needed in the capital and how its present arrangements fit into the government’s plans.
Back in December, Sir Sadiq Khan welcomed the White Paper as an opportunity to “change our city for better and for good”. But details remain sketchy, the meeting heard, particularly around proposals for a “single financial settlement” for City Hall, wrapping up all government funding with fewer strings attached.
Those “single pot” or “pooled funding deals” are already in place for the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, and are promised for other regional next year. “This is a reform I have wanted put in place for some time and will let London set its priorities,” said Khan. But, as the committee was told, the White Paper only commits Whitehall to “exploring” how these “integrated settlement” arrangements could be granted to City Hall from 2026/27.
There was concern too, said University College London’s Dr Janice Morphet (pictured), that the current arrangements, essentially the same as those put in place by the previous government, still include significant Whitehall “sign off” and oversight. An integrated settlement along those lines for City Hall could be a “backward step” for an authority already enjoying statutory powers, she told the committee.
London’s existing devolution settlement, which the White Paper recognises as “bespoke”, had been an “extraordinary success”, said Professor Patrick Diamond of Queen Mary University of London, warning against a “one size fits all” approach. “If it’s not broke don’t fix it,” he said. “It is important to recognise the difference and distinctiveness of London as a place which needs its own governance arrangements.”
With the government’s early devolution decisions focused on authorities outside the city, there was a sense that the capital’s arrangements were not a high priority, suggested Rob Anderson, research director at the Centre for London think tank. “There hasn’t been much chat in government about London,” he said. “Are they saying ‘let’s talk about London later’?”
But if the arrangements for London were not a “done deal”, said Diamond, there was an opportunity now that the capital needed to take. “Ministers need to be pressured and persuaded that if they are serious about devolution that’s got to mean an approach which offers scope for local discretion and flexibility. London’s decision-makers need to work with central government to get the framework that a place like London needs.”
That should not include joint decision-making with the capital’s boroughs, as proposed last month by the cross-party London Councils, the committee agreed. There was evidence, said Bristol university’s Dr Jack Newman, that strategic decision-making in the combined authorities, where that system operated, had been “destabilised” by political disagreement.
Giving 32 boroughs a veto through formal structures could be “problematic”, added Diamond, while Conservative assembly member Keith Prince put it more succinctly: borough leaders would only be concerned about own patch. It was agreed, though, that more powers for the Mayor should be matched by more powers for the assembly.
The missing element in the government’s proposals, the committee heard, remained “fiscal devolution” – the power to spend more of the taxation revenue raised in the city as well as levying new taxes. This has long be called for London business organisations as well as its government institutions. “What we call devolution is essentially a limited form of delegation,” said Diamond.
Meanwhile, the BusinessLDN group continues to call for a long-term funding deal for Transport for London and more money for affordable housing in order to “provide businesses with the certainty they need to make long-term decisions”. London Councils has warned of the imminent “collapse” of council housing finances without urgent government action. And Hamida Ali, from the Future Governance Forum think tank, reminded the meeting what the devolution White Paper had not addressed: “The key problem of how we fund public services”.
Watch the London Assembly oversight committee meeting in full here.
OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. Support it for just £5 a month or £50 a year and get things for your money other people won’t. Details HERE. Follow Charles Wright on Bluesky.