Consequences for the government of England Tony Travers London School of Economics The government of England • UK Parliament and government is England’s Parliament and government • Failure of efforts to solve ‘West Lothian’ problem • Blair government’s English regional policy • Greater London Authority • RDAs; Government Regional Offices, regional ‘assemblies’ • North East referendum (2004) • Abolition of all ‘regional’ machinery by Coalition Some options for England • English Parliament • Dominant within ‘federal’ UK • Two PMs? • English Grand Committee • Plus convention that its decisions on England laws would not be overturned by UK parliament • McKay Commission proposals • English MPs’ veto/delaying power • Fourth reading of England-only Bills • Final decision given to English MPs • Do nothing, but have a running debate England’s sub-national government • Relatively weak, residual, local government system • Transfer of services from LG over post-1945 period – Utilities; health; ambulances; advanced FE; FE; schools, public health [also, non-domestic rates] – Modest transfers to LG: ‘community care’; public health; council tax ‘support’; • Local taxation frozen and capped • GLA and ‘city region’ combined authorities have been able to negotiate limited financial freedoms The debate about Scotland • Has reminded English politicians and others about the Barnett Formula and Scotland’s funding advantage • Scotland and Wales have shown that radical devolution within the UK can be achieved without collapse and failure • Calman, Holtham, Silk have proposed substantial tax reform to build upon existing devolution • Taxation powers will test Treasury orthodoxy • NB: Scottish Conservatives’ income tax policy Barnett and England Public expenditure by nation and region, 2011-12 Public Expenditure (£ per head) PE (UK=100) GDP (UK=100) UK 6225 100 100 England 5945 96 102 (- East 5546 89 93) Scotland 7156 115 99 Wales 7081 114 75 Northern Ireland 10287 165 79 Source: HM Treasury, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2013, Table 9.20 ‘Devo max’: not for England • No current proposals to change the sub-national government of England • ‘City regional’ government now part of a multiparty political consensus • Greater Manchester is the best-developed city region outside London • ‘Earn Back’ deal [also now for Cambridge] • Developed economic plan for Greater Manchester • London • No greater tax freedom than the rest of England • But, London Finance Commission proposals for fiscal devolution to some extent picked up by Adonis report After the referendum: what next for England? • Osborne, Miliband offer some form of city regional powers • Barrier to substantial England reforms – Scotland, wales, Northern Ireland administrations were already separate from England when devolution occurred – Any substantive devolution within England would weaken Whitehall departments – Health, Education, Work & Pensions – Baronies of UK central government are (arguably) now more powerful than the Treasury Challenge/opportunity of continued ‘austerity’ • Unsustainable size of UK State – Tax: 38% GDP; Expenditure: 43% GDP • Zero deficit = Expenditure: 38% GDP – Need for government to devolve shrinkage of the State? – Relative dynamism and productivity of city/local government – Either local government in England will have to shrink by 50% in real terms or there will have to be devolution of local public spending to areas • City regions as potential pilots What the English think…. Source: John Curtice in ‘Does England want Scotland to Leave or Stay?’, NatCen, 2014 Conclusions • England’s self-perception as a single country appears very powerful • Not much evidence the public is much concerned with England’s constitutional position within the UK • Sub-national government in England weaker than in the past • London as possible exception – up to a point • Limited form of ‘city regional’ devolution may be the next step… Consequences for the government of England Tony Travers London School of Economics