The Blair government’s decision to create national parliaments in Scotland and Wales dramatically altered the British constitutional order. Considerable powers were devolved to these new institutions, changing the fundamental relationship between the British state and its constituent countries.
These parliaments have now become permanent fixtures in the political landscape, but there remains a gaping hole in the UK’s constitutional arrangement that has yet to be comprehensively addressed: the so-called ‘English Question’. This highlights the asymmetry present in the UK devolution programme and questions why England remains the only nation without a similarly devolved administration.
This may at first glance seem like a trivial question – why does it matter that there is no ‘English assembly’? English MPs dominate the Westminster parliament, constituting 543 out of 650 seats, enjoying an overwhelming political majority. England is also by far the most populous nation, home to over 80% of the British population.
Under this view devolution was designed to protect the interests of smaller nations. A vital safeguard for communities that had been neglected by an English dominated parliament. A mechanism through which policymaking could be brought closer to home and produce better results for all corners of Britain.
Any debate over ‘English devolution’ may seem more appropriate for academic circles, a conversation for constitutional enthusiasts (or perhaps fringe English nationalists), and not an existential issue for the everyday voter.
This could not be further from the truth. Creating a model of English devolution that works, one that addresses the current democratic deficit, is vital for a range of political and economic reasons.
England remains one of the most centralised countries in the Western world. Most policies are determined by the government in London, which strictures limited autonomy for local authorities. There have been some moves over the last decade to address this. George Osborne’s preferred solution was the introduction of metro mayors for city regions. Although this has helped to address aspects of the problem, providing voters with closer and more accountable decision-making, it can hardly be considered proper devolution.
The mayors have limited, and I mean limited, policymaking powers that effectively extend to transport, planning, and sometimes policing. The map of English devolution is reminiscent of a patchwork quilt with vast swathes of the country, especially rural areas, not covered by any mayoral authority. A political effort, devolution that is, which encompasses 48% of England’s population and 54% of its economic output, hardly seems a fair or effective solution to the problem of English centralisation.
Politically, despite English dominance in the Commons, MPs seem unable to effectively protect the interests of England. Case in point: tuition fees. Anyone saddled with exorbitant levels of student debt can thank the constitutional unfairness of the British system for their reduced pay-packet. Although Scottish students enjoy free university education, it was a cohort of Scottish MPs who enabled the Blair government to get the ball rolling on increasing English tuition fees. A clearly undemocratic occurrence that became more likely since the scrapping of ‘English Votes for English Laws’.
Furthermore, the lack of representation outside of Westminster means English grievances are aired at the UK level, leading to potentially fatal consequences for the Union. For example, Brexit could be considered the product of revived English nationalism and unhappiness with the state of current affairs, inflicted on remaining supporting UK nations due to a lack of alternative routes for English voters to hold their politicians accountable, as elaborated in Michael Kenny’s Fractured Union.
This sense of disenfranchisement and disillusionment with the state of politics is exacerbated by the centralised nature of the system. There are few notable political figures that appear accountable to their local electorate, with MPs seen as an extension of national politics not regional champions.
There are also sizeable economic issues created by the overcentralisation of England. Large differences in regional prosperity exist within the country. London and the South East enjoy a much higher GDP per capita and level of productivity than other areas and many English cities underperform according to economic metrics. This has worsened over time, with the UK now one of the West’s most unequal societies.
Devolution is the solution. An OECD study found that decentralisation positively affects GDP growth. Putting policymaking in the hands of local experts and politicians who know and understand their communities will ensure decisions reflect local concerns. Economic policy can be tailored to the needs of the area, ensuring investment has maximum impact.
So, what practical measures need implementing? First, the mayoral system needs a revamp. The Institute for Government has outlined a host of important changes for the future of English devolution. These include expanding the policy to 85% of England’s population and ensuring clearer messaging about its purpose.
But to fix these problems we need to go further (and faster). 85% still means nearly nine million people would be without a devolution deal. The current Labour government needs to do better than its predecessor and ensure that every part of England has a devolved institution that represents them.
This also means devolving greater powers. Allowing the mayors only minor policy autonomy and leaving them saddled with dependence on Westminster funding is a half-baked solution. We need to take bold steps towards aspects of fiscal decentralisation and comprehensive policy devolution. Ensuring that local communities are put first and policy reflects the varying needs of different regions.
Unless politicians are willing to be brave and upset the traditional constitutional order, the economic and political problems that plague many of England’s regions will continue to fester – with potentially fatal consequences for the union.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Julian Herzog
No image changes made.
Comments