The Government has embarked on an ambitious and decisive push for devolution, with tight deadlines that have sparked debate among local authorities. When the English Devolution White Paper was published on 16 December, councils were given until 10 January to join the fast-track Devolution Priority Programme. This left councils with less than three working weeks over the festive period to finalise proposals—a timeframe widely seen as unreasonable for such significant reforms, but also indicative of the Government’s resolve to push ahead quickly.
For some regions, the process has likely been more manageable. Norfolk and Suffolk, for example, had already laid much of the groundwork for a devolution agreement, though one without a metro mayor that was scrapped shortly after the Government took office. Others, such as Cheshire and Warrington, had also been in discussions for some time. However, for many areas, the process has felt rushed and chaotic, as evidenced by the flurry of extraordinary general meetings held on the 8th and 9th of January to meet the deadline.
Adding to the challenge, the Government has made it clear that devolution deals must involve a metro mayor. Non-mayoral agreements may only be considered as temporary stepping stones, and even then, those areas would be at the back of the queue. This has placed councils hesitant about mayoral governance in an awkward position.
Challenges in transition
The Government’s plan involves replacing smaller district councils with larger unitary authorities—a significant restructuring that many councillors argue demands proper consultation with residents and stakeholders. Such consultation, however, has been largely absent in this accelerated process. Devon’s district councils, for example, issued a joint statement criticising the pace of reform:
“Any reform of local government in Devon should follow a period of proper consultation with residents, businesses, elected representatives, and stakeholders … Our objective must be to get this right for our residents and businesses. That cannot be achieved if we make rushed decisions that have not been given the serious consideration that they deserve.”
This sentiment has also been raised in Parliament. Labour MP for Banbury, Sean Woodcock, questioned the Devolution Minister:
“Can the Minister assure me that the fast-tracking and the speed of this process […] will not lead to rushed proposals that do not take into account what communities actually feel and look like?”
This is complex work. Kent and Medway, for instance, must navigate both the transition to unitaries and the negotiation of devolution simultaneously—a monumental task within the given timeframe.
Fear of being left behind
Despite these obstacles, many councils are pushing forward, driven by a fear of falling behind the pack. Areas with a history of scepticism towards devolution, often mayoral governance in particular, are now prioritising progress to avoid losing out on funding and powers. As Phil Jordan, Independent leader of the Isle of Wight, put it:
“We won’t get to choose whether or not we want devolution; it is going to happen. What we do have some choice in is whether or not we want to do that sooner, rather than later.”
The Isle of Wight offers a striking example of the complexities involved. Initially, its Full Council rejected a proposal to join a Hampshire/Solent deal that would link it with towns like Basingstoke, 65 miles and a ferry ride away. However, the decision was later pushed through by its Cabinet, highlighting the difficult internal strife many councils are facing.
Balancing speed with progress
The Government’s intention to unblock devolution and ensure it reaches all regions, including the South, is laudable. Until now, devolution (excluding Greater London) has been driven primarily in the North and Midlands, and it is past time for the South to catch up. As Devolution Minister Jim McMahon stated:
“We have to demonstrate that this project is not reserved for the North of England and the Midlands. This is a project for the whole of England, and we are on with that.”
However, the speed at which these reforms are being implemented could risk undermining their long-term success.
Once the devolution map is complete, further reorganisation will become extremely difficult, meaning any mistakes—such as misaligned geographies or unworkable arrangements—could endure for decades. Additionally, the lack of meaningful consultation raises legitimate concerns about whether these reforms truly address local needs and aspirations.
That said, the long-term benefits of devolution will outweigh the difficulties of this initial phase.
By transferring powers and funding closer to the people, devolution has the potential to drive growth, improve public services, and empower communities. The current process may feel rushed and imperfect, but delaying any further risks leaving areas behind in a system that is already uneven and unbalanced.
While challenges are inevitable—particularly in areas with differing political dynamics—the Government’s determination to deliver devolution should ultimately be seen as a step in the right direction. In time, this period may come to be viewed as a necessary—if turbulent—foundation for more equitable and locally empowered governance. The pace is demanding, but meaningful progress often requires bold and decisive action.
Yesterday, the Inflect team released a report exploring what that future map of English local governance could look like.Read our analysis
