The Hidden Costs of English Devolution: A Crisis of Capacity and Accountability

The Promise and the Reality of Devolution

When Andy Burnham unveiled his ambitious devolution plans, he painted a vision of empowered local communities making decisions closer to home. But as the dust settles on the first wave of reforms, a more sobering reality is emerging. The promise of devolution isn't just about distributing power—it's about ensuring that local authorities have the resources, capacity, and accountability mechanisms to wield that power effectively.

"Devolution may well be the right destination, but the sequencing matters."

I've spent years investigating how public money flows through local systems, and I can tell you that the current state of English devolution is not just about political ambition—it's a crisis of governance.

Financial Crisis Undermines Devolution

One of the most alarming aspects of the current devolution experiment is the financial instability plaguing local authorities. England is already in the middle of a major reorganization, with 185 councils being reshaped into new unitary authorities and six new mayoral authorities taking shape.

This transformation occurs at a time when local governments are facing unprecedented fiscal stress. In just the last six years, eight councils have issued section 114 bankruptcy notices—compared to almost none in the previous 18 years. A 2024 survey by the Local Government Information Unit found that 51% of councils believe they'll issue such notices within five years.

This is not a matter of political choice—it's a structural problem. When institutions are simultaneously being dismantled and rebuilt, while also dealing with mounting debt, there's little capacity left to absorb new responsibilities. The result? Devolution is being layered on top of an already fragile foundation.

Procurement Chaos: A Postcode Lottery

From the perspective of service providers in the third sector, devolution has created a chaotic procurement landscape. Some local authorities are sophisticated and transparent in their processes; others are fragmented and opaque. The inconsistency is staggering.

• Local councils with strong procurement practices engage constructively with providers
• Others lack the infrastructure to manage complex contracts
• Small charities often cannot navigate multiple portals and varying requirements

This creates what I call a 'postcode lottery': your success in securing public contracts depends less on merit and more on geography. It's a fundamental failure of devolution's core principle—that local decisions should reflect community needs.

The Human Cost of Devolution

Consider the story of Haile Reed, a bid manager working with third-sector organizations. He rightly points out that while devolution has the potential to bring decision-making closer to communities, it also creates a new set of barriers for those most in need of services.

Small, community-rooted charities may lack the resources to navigate complex procurement processes, yet they often possess the deepest understanding of local issues. This mismatch—between capacity and need—is the real danger behind the devolution experiment.

Local Media: A Missing Piece

Another critical element is missing from the conversation about accountability: local journalism. David Young's letter to the editor highlights a pressing concern—the decline of local media. He writes about the Hastings Independent Press (HIP), a grassroots newspaper run by volunteers that somehow survives with no formal funding, premises, or equipment.

Local newspapers are essential for democratic accountability. They inform communities, hold officials accountable, and provide a counterbalance to national narratives. Yet they're being starved of resources in an era where digital platforms dominate public discourse.

"Funding from 'the socials' would make all the difference to our grassroots collective."

Without investment in local media, there is no real accountability—no mechanism to scrutinize how devolved power is being exercised. The absence of a well-informed public means that even if councils are capable, they may not be held accountable for their actions.

Capacity vs. Power: The Core Mismatch

The fundamental problem isn't with devolution itself—it's the mismatch between power and capacity. We are asking local authorities to take on responsibilities without ensuring they have the necessary infrastructure, training, or resources to carry them out.

This is a crisis of governance, not just politics. The question isn't whether we should devolve power, but whether every place has the capacity to exercise it well. And right now, the answer is a resounding no.

Looking Forward: Rebuilding Accountability

To fix this, we need more than just new structures—we need investment in the systems that support those structures. That means:

1. Investment in local commissioning expertise and procurement capacity
2. Rebuilding local media to ensure democratic accountability
3. Ensuring that devolution is sequenced properly, not rushed through during a period of national upheaval
4. Providing clear mechanisms for oversight and transparency

The promise of devolution is real—but it must be grounded in reality. If we continue to hand over power without building the capacity to manage it, we will not just fail communities; we will destroy trust in local democracy itself.