There’s been much speculation recently, fuelled by leaks from within Government, about the new Labour Government’s upcoming English Devolution Bill. If the reports are accurate, the bill could bring significant changes to the way local government is structured in England. While Labour’s intentions may be aimed at decentralising power, there are worrying indications that some of these proposals could undermine local democracy rather than empower it.
As Liberal Democrats, we have always championed genuine devolution that puts real power in the hands of local communities. But while we welcome the opportunity to engage in a discussion about devolution, we need to tread carefully. If these leaked proposals are anything to go by, there are some aspects that should give us serious pause. Labour seems committed, for instance, to creating new regional mayors across the country—a model that doesn’t necessarily fit all communities and may lead to the abolition of district councils in the process.
Devolution Must Strengthen, Not Replace, Local Government
One of the main concerns stemming from these leaks is the potential threat to district councils.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Autumn Budget has revealed that proposed devolution legislation will involve “working with councils to move to simpler structures that make sense for their local areas.”
I believe this will mean the creation of Unitary Authorities and the abolition of the remaining 164 district councils.
District councils are integral to their communities, handling services that matter directly to local people, from planning and housing to waste collection. District councils bring government close to the people, fostering accountability and a sense of community representation that larger, more centralised bodies simply cannot replicate.
This was evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when district councils answered the call of duty and were often the front line, coordinating volunteer groups and administering (often at very short notice!) government funding.
The idea that district councils could be swept away in favour of regional bodies runs counter to the principle of bringing power closer to local people. Instead of empowering communities, we could see a move towards a model that prioritises regional efficiency over genuine local representation. People deserve leaders who understand the specific needs and identities of their communities—not just one-size-fits-all solutions imposed from above.
A “Mayor for All” Model? Not Necessarily
Labour’s reported commitment to rolling out more directly elected mayors is another contentious issue. In urban areas with a clear sense of regional identity, mayors can certainly play a strong and positive role. But in many parts of England, the “mayor model” may not be the best fit. Not all communities want or need a directly elected mayor, and it’s unclear whether this push from Labour is really about devolution or simply centralising power under a different guise and so they have fewer people to deal with!
However, we also recognise that this is a battle we may not be able to win in every community. As Liberal Democrats, we need to pick our battles, and here we should engage constructively, rather than stand on the sidelines. If mayors are to become a central part of Labour’s devolution framework, we need to ensure that these roles are truly accountable and reflective of local needs—not just token figures for centralised policies.
For example, district councils should have a seat at the table when working with and holding mayors accountable.
Picking Our Battles: Engaging with the Process
It’s easy to feel uncomfortable with certain aspects of these leaked proposals, and we have every right to be cautious. But disengaging isn’t an option. If we’re not at the table, we won’t be able to influence how these changes impact our communities. By engaging actively in this process, we can work to safeguard the aspects of local democracy that matter most to residents and push for a devolution model that genuinely respects community choice.
Our focus should be on advocating for flexibility in any new structures, ensuring that local people retain the ability to choose the model that best fits their needs. Instead of forcing a centralised structure on every community, Labour should prioritise a flexible, people-centred approach that empowers communities to find their own path to effective local governance. That’s what true devolution should look like and that’s what Liberal Democrats at the Local Government Association are campaigning for.
A Liberal Democrat Vision for Local Empowerment
As Liberal Democrats, our vision for devolution is clear: a system that enables local authorities, whether district councils or larger regional bodies, to work in partnership rather than in competition. We believe in empowering communities, not dictating to them. District councils should have a place in this vision, as they represent a crucial link between residents and the decisions that affect their daily lives.
Instead of focusing on restructuring for the sake of restructuring, Labour should be looking at ways to devolve real powers and resources to existing bodies. This approach would allow councils to address the issues that matter most to their residents—housing, health, education, transport, and climate resilience—rather than wasting resources on administrative reorganisation.
Working Together to Shape the Future of Devolution
Until Labour’s proposals are officially published, we can only speculate on the finer details of the English Devolution Bill. But one thing is clear: there is an opportunity here to shape the future of local government in England. If handled thoughtfully, devolution could lead to stronger, more responsive local authorities that genuinely represent and empower their communities. If mishandled, however, we risk undermining the very democratic principles that should be at the heart of local governance.
Let’s work together to ensure that devolution is more than just a political exercise. Real devolution means respecting the voices of communities and ensuring that local government is shaped from the bottom up—not the top down. As Liberal Democrats, we will continue to advocate for a devolution that strengthens, not weakens, the power of local people and their representatives. The government’s proposal, whatever its final form, must put people, not political expediency, at the heart of its vision for England’s future.
Let’s make sure we don’t lose the local in local government!
* Joe Harris is Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group at the Local Government Association and Leader of Cotswold District Council.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1297
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Brexit putting England and Wales tap water safety at risk
Regional Candidates Committee - let the verwaltung* commence (but not until the New Year)
Should Labour move to the right on immigration? The Week in Polls
4th Dec
David Garlick
Simon R
Mick Taylor
Diana Simpson
expats
11 Comments
To me the Mayor was a ceremonial office held for one year, rather than an office of individual power, held for 5 years.
A system of elected mayors effectively undermines local democracy, if anything we need to make councillors more accountable, which may require actually paying them…
Change in our area has been needed for over a decade. When on our local cabinet I tried to get progress on a proposal for all district councils to share legal and other ‘backroom staff across Staffordshire but the councils did not want it in spite of its financial and operational benefits. In Newcastle under Lyme we have a Conservative controlled district council which pulled out of a joint local plan with Stoke on Trent which means more cost to us and more use of our greenfields. The reason was their perceived views of voters, which 30 years ago was strongly opposed to having anything to do with our neighbours. The area still suffers from the consequences in lots of ways. It is now over 10 years since I said all councils in North Staffordshire should work together on transport and economic strategy; there would also be benefits in sharing officers and their expertise. The local situation is complex, but North Staffordshire’s needs are very different from the rest of Staffordshire so that needs to change. It is welcome that government looks now to want to take the lead and insist on changes, but we do not want anywhere in North Staffordshire an elected Mayor.
The councils have also agreed Newcastle under Lyme and Moorlands district councils should not disappear. SO I hope government will listen while insisting on joint working on all strategic issues. Our area has lagged behind due to the lack of local cooperation by our councils.
The creation of Unitary Authorities does not necessarily lead to more centralisation. In the 1998 Local Government reorganisation for Berkshire, it was Berkshire County Council that was abolished, and the six district and borough councils became Unitary Authorities. The previous reorganisation in 1974 merged small rural district councils into those six councils (in that reorganisation, part of Berkshire was also ‘stolen’ by Oxfordshire!).
However, for some responsibilities these Unitaries are rather small, and they have combined forces (in different combinations) for some functions. Recently, they have made an expression of interest in county-wide devolution without a mayor.
It seems that, at least for Berkshire, Local Government reorganisations happen around every 25 years, so perhaps we should be prepared for another one. 🙂 or 🙁 ?
I support the abolition of district councils, so that each square metre of our country is part of a single unitary local authority. The current system is fragemented and inefficient.
I also support executive Mayors (as opposed to ceremonial Mayors) for all conurbations, especially when, like Greater Manchester, the economic conurbation includes multiple boroughs.
Having never lived in the countryside, I don’t have a strong view about mayors, but regard the creation of unitary authorities as vital.
The most important issue for councils at the moment is finances, and the public sector funding formula.
I doubt there is much public interest in/demand for more elected mayors, ‘visions’ or ’empowerment’.
Most folk just want decent public services and are fed-up of council tax going up while services are cut.
And merging small authorities into unitary ones doesn’t always solve things – not in the new Cumberland Council’s case, for sure.
@Mohammed Amin
“I also support executive Mayors (as opposed to ceremonial Mayors) for all conurbations,”
Sorry from what we have seen todate, I don’t what real value they bring to local democracy; either in the UK or in the US, compared to traditional councils with a leader appointed by the elected members.
A really concerning article illustrating real danger for local empowerment. Cabinet rather than Committee started the rot. Conservative starving Councils of cash pushes us closer to the Amarican USA model. Tory delighted if this goes ahead as they have been trying to do away with District Councils for decades. NORTHAMPTONSHE crashed in bankruptcy. All Distrct Councils brutally done away with. County decided into two Unitaries which are both failing by an reasonable
Measure
Any power that can be devolved to the nations can be devolved to regions of England the size of Northern Ireland. It’s up to the UK government with consultations to decide what those regions are, what those powers are and ensure they have democratic constitutions but it should leave itself with a consistent set of powers that apply equally across the country. One of those devolved powers should be the structure of local government and what powers the devolved authority wishes to devolve further.
Here in Buckinghamshire the Unitary authority (2021) could have worked as the business case promised devolution to the Towns and Parishes. The Tory run adminsitration then reneged on those promises once the Unitary authority was established and local assets and services that would have been transferred (such as to the TC I lead) are being run down/closed rather than being devolved.
It really is amazing how many times we try to reinvent the wheel as far as local government is concerned.
A clear design for devolved government was set out by the Liberal Party is “Power to the Provinces” many years ago, which envisaged regional government for the regions of England [alongside devolved authorities for Scotland, Wales and N Ireland] with a single tier of local government beneath it (plus towns and parishes) with the exact structure being decided by the new regional assemblies. All, of course, elected by STV.
Elected mayors are not sensible because putting so much power into the hands of one person is a recipe for cronyism and corruption.
Why we insist in constant argument and discussion on this area of policy is beyond me. When coupled with ludicrous talk of referenda on each devolution, our current policy is a surefire way of doing nothing. In a parliamentary democracy parties put their intended policy proposals in their manifesto and if they win, then they implement them. So we should put wholesale devolution to regional assembles/parliaments in our manifesto and when we win we should pass legislation to enact this.
Whilst I can see there is a case for uniformity, surely our commitment that none shall be enslaved by conformity, suggests that differences may be both helpful and desireable.