Devolution (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes

Devolution in England

The question of English devolution remains one of the most debated constitutional issues in UK politics. Unlike Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, England has no formal devolved parliament or assembly. This creates what is known as asymmetry in the UK's constitutional arrangement, where devolution applies unevenly across different regions. The debate centres on whether England should have its own parliament similar to the devolved institutions elsewhere, and what form any English devolution might take.

Existing devolution structures in England

While England lacks formal devolution with primary legislative powers, it does possess an extensive network of local government institutions. These bodies differ significantly from the devolved assemblies in other parts of the UK because they cannot create primary legislation. Instead, they can only exercise powers that have been delegated to them by central government in Westminster. The structure of English local government is complex, with different types of authorities holding different responsibilities and serving different types of areas.

Types of local government authorities

England's local government is organized into several distinct categories, each with specific responsibilities and geographic focuses:

Unitary councils represent the most comprehensive form of local authority in England. These single-tier bodies handle the full spectrum of local services, including major responsibilities like education and social care alongside everyday services such as libraries, refuse collection, and park maintenance. By 2020, there were 57 unitary councils across England. They typically serve large towns and cities such as Portsmouth and Derby, though some also cover smaller counties like Rutland. The single-tier nature of unitary councils means residents deal with one authority for all local services, simplifying administration.

Metropolitan boroughs function similarly to unitary councils in that they provide a complete range of local services through a single-tier structure. However, they were established much earlier, having been created in 1974, and serve heavily urbanised areas primarily in the North and Midlands. There are 36 metropolitan boroughs, including authorities like the Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley. These bodies emerged from earlier reforms aimed at managing the governance of England's major industrial conurbations.

The two-tier system divides responsibilities between county and district levels in less urbanised parts of England. County councils form the upper tier, overseeing major services such as education and social services. There are 25 county councils, serving areas like Suffolk. Below them operate district, borough or city councils, of which there are 188, responsible for more localized services including leisure facilities, planning decisions, and refuse collection. An example would be New Forest District Council. This two-tier approach recognises that some services benefit from coordination across wider areas, while others are better delivered locally.

Combined authorities represent a more recent innovation in English local government. Introduced in 1999, these bodies allow two or more councils to collaborate and make collective decisions that cross traditional council boundaries. By 2020, 10 combined authorities had been established, including Greater Manchester and Sheffield City Region. This structure acknowledges that some challenges, particularly around economic development and transport, require coordination across multiple local authority areas.

London's unique structure sets the capital apart from the rest of England. The city is governed through 32 London boroughs working alongside the Greater London Authority. The GLA comprises 25 elected members and a directly elected mayor. This structure was approved through a referendum in 1998 and has seen notable mayors including Boris Johnson and, from 2020, Sadiq Khan. London's system recognises both the need for borough-level services and city-wide strategic coordination.

Financial constraints and revenue-raising powers

One of the most significant limitations on English local government concerns its ability to raise revenue independently. Unlike the devolved assemblies, which have varying tax-raising powers, English councils face extremely restricted financial autonomy. They rely predominantly on block grants from central government in Westminster for their funding. This dependence on central government money means local authorities have limited freedom to determine their own spending priorities.

The main mechanism through which English councils can directly raise some revenue is council tax, a property-based local tax. However, even this power is constrained, as central government in Westminster controls the amount by which council tax can be increased each year. Some authorities have sought additional revenue-raising powers. For instance, Bath and North East Somerset Council requested permission to introduce a levy on local tourism and short-term holiday lettings, essentially a tourist tax. By 2021, no such levy had been implemented, illustrating how central government retains ultimate control over local taxation powers.

Directly elected mayors and metro mayors

The government has actively encouraged the introduction of directly elected city mayors as a way of providing visible, accountable leadership for local areas. The Local Government Act 2000 established the framework allowing any local council in England to hold a referendum on introducing a directly elected mayor, either through citizen petition or council decision. Subsequently, councils gained the ability to introduce the system without requiring a referendum first.

A significant development came with the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, which created Metro Mayors. These leaders were elected for the first time in 2017 to head several combined authorities. The Sheffield City Region held its metro mayor election in May 2018, followed by North of Tyne (covering Newcastle and surrounding areas) in 2019. By 2020, England had 15 directly elected city mayors and 8 metro mayors. A prominent example is Andy Burnham, former Labour health minister, who was elected as Greater Manchester's mayor in 2017.

However, the introduction of directly elected mayors has not met with universal enthusiasm. In both Torbay and Hartlepool, subsequent referendums successfully abolished the position after initial implementation. The sentiment towards the office in Hartlepool was arguably demonstrated through an unusual electoral outcome.

The debate over an English parliament

Unlike Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, where devolution debates have been emotionally charged and politically prominent, the question of English devolution and a potential English parliament has attracted less passion and public attention. Historical consideration of the issue dates back to a Speaker's Conference held in 1919-20, which examined devolution across the UK. This conference concluded that an all-England institution would be preferable to regional assemblies, though the recommendation had minimal immediate or long-term impact. Following devolution to other parts of the UK in the late 1990s, the Campaign for an English Parliament was established in 1998, but it has attracted relatively limited support from major political parties.

Arguments for an English parliament

Several substantial arguments support the creation of a devolved English parliament, each addressing different aspects of governance, identity, and fairness within the UK constitutional system.

Completing devolution and achieving parity represents perhaps the most straightforward argument. Establishing an English parliament would provide England with equal treatment to other UK nations and complete the devolution process logically and systematically. Conservative MP Teresa Gorman articulated this view when proposing an unsuccessful private member's bill in 1998 calling for a referendum on English devolution, arguing that England deserved "fair and equal treatment". An English parliament would eliminate the current asymmetry in UK governance, where three nations have devolved institutions but the largest does not.

Resolving the West Lothian Question has become increasingly important, particularly as devolution has bedded in over two decades. The West Lothian Question refers to the controversial situation where MPs representing devolved regions can vote on matters affecting only England, whilst English MPs cannot vote on issues that have been devolved to Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. An English parliament would provide a permanent, comprehensive solution to this constitutional anomaly, removing the need for the complicated EVEL (English Votes for English Laws) procedure introduced in 2015. The significance of this issue was demonstrated in July 2015 when David Cameron's government withdrew its attempt to relax the foxhunting ban in England and Wales after the SNP indicated its MPs would vote against the measure, breaking the convention that Scottish MPs would not vote on English-only matters.

Reducing London's dominance addresses concerns about the excessive centralisation of power in Westminster and the capital more broadly. An English parliament would likely be located outside London, thereby reducing the concentration of political power in one city. This decentralisation could help address the perception that English politics is overly dominated by London-centric perspectives and priorities, giving greater voice to other English regions.

Expressing English identity and interests has gained prominence in recent years. Just as Wales and Scotland can give clear expression to their national identities and political preferences through devolved institutions, England could do likewise through its own parliament. Political divergence across the UK has become more pronounced, with Wales and Scotland generally displaying more left-wing political preferences whilst England tends more right-wing. An English parliament could reflect and legislate according to these distinctly English political preferences. The Brexit referendum particularly highlighted this divergence, with England voting strongly to leave whilst Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain.

Building on devolution's success draws on the experience of the past two decades. Devolution has generally worked well in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, suggesting that the principle of bringing government closer to the people is sound. Extending this successful model to England could bring similar benefits of more responsive, locally-focused governance.

Growing political support for the idea has emerged in recent years, primarily though not exclusively from Conservative politicians. In November 2014, Conservative backbencher Andrew Rosindell introduced a private member's bill proposing a federal structure for the UK including an English parliament. The bill was co-sponsored by fellow Conservative John Redwood, Conservative 1922 Committee chair Graham Brady, and several MPs from other parties. Interestingly, support has also come from leading Scottish nationalist figures including former SNP leader Alex Salmond and SNP MP Pete Wishart, who see English devolution as potentially supporting their goal of Scottish independence by normalising separate national institutions.

Arguments against an English parliament

Equally substantial arguments oppose the creation of an English parliament, raising practical, constitutional, and political objections to the proposal.

England's dominance of any federal system presents perhaps the most fundamental challenge. Any English parliament would inevitably dominate a federal United Kingdom both economically and demographically. England contains approximately 85% of the UK's total population and generates the bulk of national GDP. This massive imbalance differs fundamentally from federal systems in other countries, where constituent units are more evenly matched in size and economic power. Such dominance could make any federal UK structure unworkable, with England constantly overwhelming the other nations in any UK-wide decisions.

England's weak national identity contrasts sharply with the strong cultural and national identities found in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland that helped drive their devolution movements. England lacks the cohesive sense of national identity that characterises other UK nations. Instead, English identity tends to be much more regional in character. Cornwall and Merseyside, for instance, enjoy strong regional identities but share little in common culturally or economically. This regional rather than national sense of identity suggests that regional assemblies might be more appropriate than an all-England parliament, though these too have proven unpopular.

The location debate would prove contentious and potentially divisive. Determining where an English parliament should sit raises difficult questions without obvious answers. Locating it in London, close to Westminster, might make sense for efficiency but would fail to address concerns about London's dominance. Moving it to the Midlands or North would reduce this centralisation but raises questions about which specific location, with any choice inevitably favouring some regions over others and potentially causing resentment.

The substantial costs involved in creating an entirely new layer of government cannot be ignored. Establishing an English parliament would require paying representatives, recruiting many additional civil servants, and providing building and administrative infrastructure. These costs would be considerable at a time when public finances face multiple pressures. Critics argue that the money could be better spent on improving public services or existing local government rather than creating new political institutions.

Weakening Westminster's role presents a unique challenge that does not apply to devolution elsewhere in the UK. If an English parliament took responsibility for debating laws affecting England, the Westminster Parliament — often called the "mother of all parliaments" — would lose much of its purpose and activity. Unlike with Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish devolution, where Westminster retains significant business, removing English affairs would leave Westminster as little more than a coordinating body for reserved matters. This risks fundamentally undermining one of the world's oldest and most significant parliamentary institutions.

Paradoxically weakening the Union represents another distinctive concern. Unlike Scotland, where devolution has been seen as a way to preserve the Union by satisfying demands for greater autonomy, English devolution could have the opposite effect. There is no prospect of England leaving the UK if devolution is not granted, so devolution cannot be justified as necessary to preserve the Union. Indeed, by creating separate English institutions, devolution might actually normalise the idea of England as a separate entity and make eventual UK breakup more likely rather than less.

Lack of public enthusiasm provides perhaps the most politically significant argument against an English parliament. Evidence of public support for English devolution is limited at best. A 2004 referendum on a modest regional assembly for the North East was heavily rejected by voters, with 78% voting against and only 22% supporting the proposal. Many areas have also rejected the introduction of directly elected mayors in referendums. This lack of popular support suggests that devolution elsewhere in the UK has not created demand for similar arrangements in England. If anything, recent evidence suggests that aside from maintaining the status quo, English voters prefer the idea of regional assemblies over an all-England parliament.

Summary of the debate

Arguments for an English parliament	Arguments against an English parliament
It would complete devolution and remove the current asymmetry	England is different from other regions in terms of size and its economy
It would enable English identity and culture to flourish	England largely lacks its own national identity; culture and identity are more regional
It would finally resolve the West Lothian Question	EVEL has largely addressed the West Lothian Question
It would enable more power to be decentralised away from London	There would be considerable expense involved, and it would weaken Westminster significantly
There are growing calls for it from some politicians	There is no evidence of strong public support for an English parliament
Devolution has worked well elsewhere in the UK	What works in smaller parts of the UK may not work in its largest region