The Commons: Devolution in the UK – Progress, Challenges, and the Future of Local Governance
CHUNYIP WONG
In 1997 Tony Blair's New Labour government took office with the promise of devolving power away from Westminster. After public referendums in the affirmative, in 1998 the government created the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish parliaments in order to give these regions more political, economic, and social autonomy. Today, the UK government is considering expanding devolution to more areas of the country through metro mayors and council authorities, reflecting on the benefits and drawbacks devolution has brought over the past 27 years and assessing whether the new plans will lead to greater success or increased bureaucracy in the UK political system.
Unlike the USA, the UK does not operate as a federal system, but rather as a unitary system. This means that, for example, the Scottish parliament based in Holyrood has significantly less power than the Californian state legislature. Holyrood’s power is derived from the Westminster parliament, which can legally expand or limit the regional government’s authority as much as it likes. The devolved governments and their powers are not guaranteed or fixed by a constitution although any changes made by Westminster could be politically controversial.
Why did Tony Blair champion devolution? The adoption of devolution in the late 1990s was in response to long-standing demands from regions in the UK for greater control over their affairs. By creating separate parliaments, the New Labour government aimed to address this regional discontent and provide a more tailored and localized approach to governance. This move was not just about decentralizing power; it was an effort to rebuild trust in political institutions by bringing decision-making closer to the people it affects. Over time, this process has allowed each region to experiment with policies suited to its unique landscape, in stark contrast to the one-size-fits-all approach of a centralized Westminster.
The opportunity for localized decision-making has been a major advantage of devolution. With powers transferred to regional bodies, policies in areas such as education, healthcare, and transportation can be better aligned with local needs. For instance, the Scottish Parliament has pursued education reforms and social policies that reflect the Scottish people’s values, while in Wales there has been a focus on issues like rural development. Tailored governance enables regions to innovate in their own way, address specific local challenges, and often serves as laboratories for policy experimentation. This flexibility can lead to more effective governance in the long-term and provides a greater sense of accountability, as regional representatives are more directly answerable to their local constituencies.
Devolved institutions stimulate political and democratic engagement by fostering a sense of political community among citizens. Voters in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are afforded the opportunity to influence policies that more directly impact their lives, incentivizing democratic participation. In regions where political dynamics may differ markedly from the rest of the UK, devolved governance allows policy divergence that better reflects local values and priorities. Devolution has not only redistributed power but has also bolstered the democratic process by encouraging more public debate and participation at a local level.
Despite these benefits, the devolution model in the UK is not without its drawbacks. The primary challenge lies in the inherent limitations of a unitary system. Unlike federal systems where regional governments have constitutionally guaranteed powers, the devolved bodies in the UK derive their authority from laws enacted by the Westminster parliament. This means that the central government retains the legal right to alter or even revoke devolved powers, a possibility that creates uncertainty and can undermine the long-term stability and effectiveness of regional administrations.
The uneven distribution of powers among devolved bodies has led to perceptions of inequality and fragmentation within the UK. While Scotland enjoys a relatively broad range of devolved powers, Wales and Northern Ireland are not given the same luxury in certain policy areas. This disparity not only fuels debates over fairness and representation but also complicates the overall governance of the United Kingdom. Critics argue that such inconsistencies may eventually lead to a patchwork of policies and standards across the country, potentially weakening national cohesion.
Another significant challenge for devolution is the risk of bureaucratic expansion. With multiple layers of government now responsible for various aspects of public policy, there is a growing concern about overlapping jurisdictions and duplicated administrative functions. The introduction of metro mayors and the empowerment of council authorities could exacerbate this issue, creating an intricate web of accountability that might, paradoxically, lead to inefficiencies and additional red tape. Instead of streamlining decision-making, an overly complex devolved structure could result in fragmented policies that are difficult for citizens to navigate or hold to account.
The current proposals to extend devolution through metro mayors and enhanced council authorities represent both an opportunity and a challenge. Proponents argue that this next phase of devolution will bring governance even closer to the people, allowing for more responsive policies at a hyper-local level. More metro mayors, for example, could provide unified leadership over city regions, addressing issues such as transportation, housing, and economic development with a more integrated approach. This model promises to reduce the distance between decision-makers and the communities they serve, potentially improving the efficiency and relevance of local governance.
However, the expansion of devolution also raises concerns about accountability and transparency. With power dispersed among an increasing number of bodies, there is a risk that the public may struggle to understand who is responsible for which policy areas. This dispersal of authority could lead to confusion and reduce the effectiveness of democratic oversight. Without clear lines of responsibility and robust mechanisms for inter-governmental coordination, the new layers of governance might lead to further bureaucracy rather than the more streamlined service delivery the government hope to implement.
